Systematic Examination of Educational Virtual Reality Studies: Google Cardboard

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 88 - 101, 01.05.2025

Didem Alsancak Sırakaya

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.35.12.3

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the current situation viz. as of year 2024 in experimental educational studies conducted using Google Cardboard as a virtual reality tool. In the study, 36 articles published in journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus databases and decided to be suitable for the research purpose were analyzed. The data were analyzed by content analysis method. According to the results obtained in the research, while the number of articles increased until 2020, it has been decreasing since this year reaching the year 2024. While the most preferred sample group was the undergraduate level, studies were carried out with the most participants between 11-30. While it is mostly used in STEM education, the number of in-school and out-of-school applications is close to each other. While survey/scale was the most preferred data collection tool, it was concluded that different media types were used in the studies. The advantages of the studies were summarized and analyzed in detail under 3 sub-themes: educational outcomes, affective outcomes and technical advantages. Whereas the most important educational outcome underlined in the articles is increases success (performance), the most important affective outcome is students develop positive attitudes. It is noteworthy that technical advantages are mentioned less frequently. On the other hand, it was concluded that some difficulties were encountered, such as eye strain and headaches.

Keywords

virtual reality, google cardboard, systematic review

References

• Ahmed, T., & Hossain, M. J. (2020). VR chiriyakhana: A virtual zoo using Google cardboard. SN Computer Science, 1(6).
• Banerjee, S., Pham, T., Eastaway, A., Auffermann, W. F., & Quigley III, E. P. (2023). The use of virtual reality in teaching three-dimensional anatomy and pathology on CT. Journal of Digital Imaging, 36(3), 1279-1284.
• Bonetti, F., Warnaby, G., & Quinn, L. (2018). Augmented reality and virtual reality in physical and online retailing: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Augmented reality and virtual reality: Empowering human, place and business, 119-132.
• Brey, P. (2014). Virtual reality and computer simulation. In Ethics and emerging technologies (pp. 315–332). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cardullo, V., & Wang, C.-H. (2022). Pre-service teachers perspectives of Google expedition. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(2), 173–183.
• Chin, K. Y., & Wang, C. S. (2024). The effectiveness of a VR-based mobile learning system for university students to learn geological knowledge. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(8), 4281-4296.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
• Cook, M., Lischer-Katz, Z., Hall, N., Hardesty, J., Johnson, J., McDonald, R., & Carlisle, T. (2019). Challenges and strategies for educational virtual reality: Results of an expert-led forum on 3D/VR technologies across academic institutions. Information Technology and Libraries, 38(4), 25-48.
• Darabkh, K. A., Alturk, F. H., & Sweidan, S. Z. (2018). VRCDEA‐TCS: 3D virtual reality cooperative drawing educational application with textual chatting system. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1677-1698.
• Ebadijalal, M., & Yousofi, N. (2022). ‘Take me to a virtual trip if you want me to write better!’: the impact of Google Expeditions on EFL learners’ writing motivation and performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1806–1828.
• Fokides, E., & Kefallinou, M. (2020). Examining the impact of spherical videos in teaching endangered species/environmental education to primary school students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 427-450.
• Gómez García, M., Trujillo Torres, J. M., Aznar Díaz, I., & Cáceres Reche, M. D. P. (2018). Augment reality and virtual reality for the improvement of spatial competences in Physical Education.
• Harvey, C., Selmanović, E., O’Connor, J., & Chahin, M. (2021). A comparison between expert and beginner learning for motor skill development in a virtual reality serious game. The Visual Computer, 37(1), 3-17.
• Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in science and technology education, 10(2), 85-119.
• Lan, YJ., Tam, V.T.T., (2022). The impact of 360° videos on basic Chinese writing: a preliminary exploration. Education Tech Research Dev 71, 539–562 (2023).
• Lee, E. A. L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education., 79, 49–58.
• Lee, E. A. L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442
• Mihelj, M., Novak, D., & Beguš, S. (2014). Virtual reality technology and applications.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Mustafa, B. (2022). Using 3D animation and virtual reality in educations. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 27, 269.
• Nobrega, F. A., & Rozenfeld, C. C. D. F. (2019). Virtual reality in the teaching of FLE in a Brazilian public school. Languages, 4(2), 36.
• Omlor, A. J., Schwärzel, L. S., Bewarder, M., Casper, M., Damm, E., Danziger, G., … Lepper, P. M. (2022). Comparison of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality videos as substitute for in-hospital teaching during coronavirus lockdown: a survey with graduate medical students in Germany. Medical Education Online, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2101417
• Othman, M. K., Nogoibaeva, A., Leong, L. S., & Barawi, M. H. (2022). Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21(4), 995-1012.
• Ou, K. L., Chu, S. T., & Tarng, W. (2021). Development of a virtual wetland ecological system using VR 360 panoramic technology for environmental education. Land, 10(8), 829.
• Palos-Sanchez, P. R., Folgado-Fernandez, J. A., & Rojas-Sanchez, M. (2022). Virtual reality technology: Analysis based on text and opinion mining. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 19(8), 7856–7885.
• Parmaxi, A., Athanasiou, A., & А Demetriou, A. (2021). Introducing a student-led application of google Expeditions: An exploratory study. Educational Media International, 58(1), 37–59.
• Parsons, D., Inkila, M., & Lynch, J. (2019). Navigating learning worlds: Using digital tools to learn in physical and virtual spaces. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 144–159.
• Rojas-Sánchez, M. A., Palos-Sánchez, P. R., & Folgado-Fernández, J. A. (2023). Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 155-192.
• Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning. Telematics & Informatics., 34(8), 1826–1836.
• Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142.
• Şahin, E., & Erken, H. Y. (2023). A low-cost mobile training model for biportal endoscopic spinal surgery. Turkish Neurosurgery.
• Tham, A. H. Duin, L. Gee, N. Ernst, B. Abdelqader and M. McGrath, (2018). Understanding Virtual Reality: Presence, Embodiment, and Professional Practice IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 178-195.
• Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & Tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism management, 66, 140-154.
• Vesisenaho, M., Juntunen, M., Häkkinen, P., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J., Fagerlund, J., & Miakush, I. (2019). Virtual reality in education: Focus on the role of emotions and physiological reactivity. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research., 12(1). https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v12i1.7329
• Vignais, N., Kulpa, R., Brault, S., Presse, D., & Bideau, B. (2015). Which technology to investigate visual perception in sport: Video vs. virtual reality. Human movement science, 39, 12-26.
• Wang, Z., & Chan, M. T. (2024). A systematic review of google cardboard used in education. Computers & Education: X Reality, 4, 100046.
• Xie, Y., Chen, Y., & Ryder, L. H. (2021). Effects of using mobile-based virtual reality on Chinese L2 students’ oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 225–245.
• Xu, X., & Ke, F. (2016). Designing a virtual-reality-based, gamelike math learning environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 27-38.