The surveys provided information about student feedback on VR videos as an educational tool. It was intended to measure student engagement, video content, the potential for future use, and equipment functionality.

To measure engagement, 3 multiple choice questions were asked. These questions and the student response distributions are shown in Fig. 4.

Student responses to the questions measuring engagement during the VR experience reported as a percentage

From the student responses, it is observable that the VR videos were highly effective at allowing students to work at their own pace, with 48% of responses strongly agreeing and 41% agreeing with the statement. Only 4% of the students disagreed with the statement and no student responded strongly disagree. 7% were neutral to the statement. However, not many students agreed (23%) or strongly agreed (5%) with the statement that VR videos made them feel more engaged with the material, with 25% reporting a neutral response, 30% disagreeing, and 16% strongly disagreeing. Only 29% of students agreed that VR videos helped in reducing environmental distractions, with 25% reporting a neutral response, 34% reporting that they disagreed, and 13% reporting that they strongly disagreed with the statement. No students responded strongly agree.

There was one open response question measuring engagement that was included in the survey, namely, “Was the length of the videos appropriate for the material covered? Please explain your answer”.. 64% of the students thought the videos had an appropriate length. Some student opinions were “Yes, the videos were long enough to cover the necessary content, but not so long that it was hard to focus.” and “Yes, the videos covered all of the lab techniques”. 21% thought that only some videos had appropriate length. Finally, 14% thought that the length of the videos was not appropriate. Some students commented “I think they could be shorter to keep the audiences attention” and “A little too long to remember specific details when we couldn't refer back to it for quizzes.”

The quality of the information included in the VR videos was measured with 3 multiple-choice questions. The student response distributions of these questions are shown in Fig. 5.

Student responses to the questions regarding the content of the VR videos, reported as a percentage

Only 14% of students agreed with the VR videos helping them retain the course information, with 2% responding strongly agree, 36% responding neutral, 30% disagreeing, and 18% strongly disagreeing. Moreover, only 9% of students agreed that the VR was helpful in making them understand the material. 38% of students were neutral to this statement, 39% disagreed, and 14% strongly disagreed. No students strongly agreed. On the other hand, 61% of students agreed that the videos provided enough information to understand the course material with 13% strongly agreeing, 21% responding neutral, only 5% disagreeing, and no students responding strongly disagree. 46% of students agreed that the videos met their expectations for the remote lab. 13% of students responded strongly agree, 21% were neutral, 13% disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed.

One open response question intended to measure the video content was included in the survey. This question is “Did you watch any of the videos multiple times? If so, why?”. It was important to know if the students re-watched the videos each time they did not understand the material. Also, watching the videos multiple times would increase the retention of the material, especially for visual learners. 68% of the students watched the video multiple times. 39% of those students re-watched the videos to prepare for the lab quizzes and reports. One of the students comment was “Yes. I watched some of the videos multiple times in order to review the material for the quizzes,”. 37% of those students re-watched the videos to understand the material better and increase retention. A student responded “Yes. To refresh myself on the content, and because I am a bit of a visual learner so the videos helped the information stick.” 11% of those students re-watched the videos because they missed important information during the first time they watched the VR videos. A student commented “Yes because sometimes I would accidentally miss some information that I would need.” Finally, 13% of those students re-watched the videos because it was difficult for them to hear, watch, or understand. A student said, “Yes, sometimes the audio was not clear.”

The survey contained 3 multiple choice questions that measured the potential for VR videos to be used in future courses. These questions and the response distributions are shown in Fig. 6.

Student responses to the questions regarding the potential for future use of the VR experience, reported as a percentage

Overall, 25% of students agreed that the videos were an acceptable alternative to in-person labs with 18% strongly agreeing, 16% responding neutral, 25% disagreeing, and 16% strongly disagreeing. 23% of students agreed and 7% strongly agreed on having the confidence of applying the learned skills to an in-person situation. 32% of students were neutral to this statement, 23% disagreed, and 14% strongly disagreed. Finally, 25% of students agreed and 7% strongly agreed on wanting VR videos in future labs. 23% of students were neutral, 27% disagreed, and 18% strongly disagreed.

Some students voiced support for the use of VR in remote labs including the following comments, “Overall, for an online lab, I thought this went pretty well. It obviously would have been nice to have this lab in person, but considering the circumstances, this was a good substitute,” “The videos were nice that I could move around in the video to focus on something in particular,” and “I think the videos were a fantastic idea to combat the virtual situation. I believe there can definitely be more improvements, but they are really close to being the best way to introduce lab material.” However, other students’ responses opposed the use of VR including the following comments: “The VR headsets were a good idea, but personally I found them to not be very useful,” “Honestly this was a good idea, but it just didn't work very well in practice. Better headsets and more work to make better videos would probably change a lot…” and “I would suggest that if a situation arises where labs have to be virtual in the future, VR should not be utilized.”

One multiple choice question within the survey measured the functionality of the VR videos and equipment. This question and the responses are represented in Fig. 7.

Student responses to the survey question “I experienced some kind of discomfort (e.g. claustrophobia, nausea, dizziness) while using the VR technology.”

36% of students agreed and 29% strongly agreed on having some kind of discomfort caused by the VR experience. 9% of students were neutral, 16% disagreed, and 11% strongly disagreed.

Two open response questions had the objective to measure technical features of the VR included in the survey. These questions are “Did you experience any problems using/viewing the videos for the lab? If so, which ones?” and “Did you use the headset while watching the VR videos? Please explain.”. It is important to make sure that the students experienced minimal or no technical issues to make the VR experience an effective educational tool.

From the first question, 62% of students did not experience problems viewing the VR videos and 38% of the students did experience problems. Out of that 38% of students, responses included 4 comments that said it was hard to hear or view parts of the videos. A student said, “The quality of the lens were too low and as a result the video was too blurry to actually see any fine detail.” 10 comments reported that the figures/text/images included in the videos were distorted, cut off, or hard to understand. A student remarked, “Yes, the VR device with the video would sometimes malfunction and it would distort some of the video images as well.” 4 comments mentioned experiencing headaches or dizziness while watching the videos. “Yes the VR made me feel sick” a student answered. 3 comments mentioned issues with the quality of the headsets. For example, a student said “Yes. I experienced double vision while using the headsets. I also experienced discomfort as a result of the nose piece from the VR headset.” 1 student commented on having difficulty using the desktop VR feature through YouTube. Finally, 1 student mentioned it was difficult to take notes while watching the VR videos.

From the second question, 54% of students did not use the headset while watching the VR videos. Out of that 54%, responses included 14 comments that the headset made them feel sick (headaches, dizziness). A student said, “No, I was unable to watch the videos using the VR set because I got really dizzy.” 3 comments mentioned that the quality of the headset made it uncomfortable to use them. A student remarked, “No, It was not very comfortable and I do not like the idea of a screen so close to my eyes.” Finally, 4 comments said that their phone had trouble fitting in the headset. A student mentioned “no, my phone was too big to fit into it properly”.

The students’ pre-lab quiz scores for labs before the VR videos had an average of 76.90% with a standard deviation of 12.95%. The pre-lab quizzes for labs utilizing the VR videos provided an average score of 83.18% with a standard deviation of 11.72%. Figure 8a displays the pre-lab quiz score distributions. The students had an average of 77.59% for the post-lab videos for labs before the VR videos with a standard deviation of 13.65. The post-lab quizzes for labs utilizing the VR videos had an average score of 81.00% with a standard deviation of 11.07%. Figure 8b displays the post-lab quiz score distributions.

Box plot distributions of (A) pre-lab quiz scores in percentage and (B) post-lab quiz scores in percentage. * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05)

Paired t-tests (with α = 0.05, n = 56) were used to compare students’ pre-lab quiz scores for labs before and after VR labs and scores for the post-lab quizzes for labs before and after VR labs. For the t-test comparing the pre-lab scores, a p-value of 0.000004 was calculated showing a statistically significant difference in pre-lab quiz scores between labs before VR and the labs utilizing VR. The t-test comparing the post-lab quiz scores calculated a p-value of 0.025546, showing a statistically significant difference between the students’ scores on post-lab quizzes for labs before VR and the labs utilizing VR.