virtual reality.pdf

Virtual Reality in Computer Science Education: A Systematic
Review
Johanna Pirker
Graz University of Technology
Graz, Austria
jpirker@iicm.edu
Andreas Dengel
University of Würzburg
Würzburg, Germany
andreas.dengel@uni-wuerzburg.de
Michael Holly
Graz, Austria
michael.holly@tugraz.at
Saeed Safikhani
Graz, Austria
s.safikhani@tugraz.at
ABSTRACT
Virtual reality (VR) technologies have become more affordable and
accessible in recent years. This is opening up new methods and
opportunities in the field of digital learning. VR can offer new forms
of interactive learning and working, especially for subjects from
the STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
area. In this context we investigate the potential and application
of VR for computer science education with a systematic review
in this paper. We present a formal literature review on the use of
VR technologies in computer science education. We focus on the
identification of factors such as learning objectives, technologies
used, interaction characteristics, and challenges and advantages of
using fully immersive VR for computer science education.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Human-centered computing → Virtual reality; • Social and
professional topics → Computing education programs; Com-
puter science education.
KEYWORDS
Virtual Reality, Computer Science Education, Literature Review, VR
ACM Reference Format:
Johanna Pirker, Andreas Dengel, Michael Holly, and Saeed Safikhani. 2020.
Virtual Reality in Computer Science Education: A Systematic Review. In
26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST
’20), November 1–4, 2020, Virtual Event, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, USA,
8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385956.3418947
1 INTRODUCTION
Immersive virtual reality (VR) experiences are simulated experi-
ences and require a VR headset (a head-mounted display, HMD,
such as the Oculus Rift) or a room-based setup with projectors and
3D glasses (e.g. a CAVE [11]). Early prototypes of immersive VR
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
VRST ’20, November 1–4, 2020, Virtual Event, Canada
© 2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-7619-8/20/11...$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3385956.3418947
experiences were introduced decades ago, but these were limited,
however, due to their technology and price range and therefore
never commercially successful [22]. With the introduction of the
Oculus Rift DK1 prototype in 2012, a new rise of consumer-oriented
VR headsets can be observed. Devices such as the Oculus Rift, the
HTC Vive, Playstation VR, or even mobile-based VR headsets enable
new possibilities for fully-immersive, cost-effective VR experiences.
This not only applies to VR for entertainment, but also to VR for
education and training.
The promise of immersive technology for education is com-
pelling. Learning activities and practical experiments, which are
often too expensive, too dangerous, or simply too time-consuming
to be conducted in a real classroom, can be replaced by virtual
experiences, especially in the STEM area. The translation of these
experiences into immersive virtual realities can be highly beneficial
for students, because the sense of being physically, socially, and
personally present in the virtual environment contributes to the
learning processes [1, 3, 21].
Recent studies show that learning outcomes in educational vir-
tual environments for computer science education can benefit from
this sense of presence [15]. Furthermore, virtual learning environ-
ments can be used to facilitate
• learning tasks leading to enhanced spatial knowledge repre-
sentation,
• experiential learning tasks that would be impractical or im-
possible in the real world,
• learning tasks that lead to increased intrinsic motivation and
engagement,
• learning tasks that lead to improved transfer of knowledge
and skills to real situations through contextualisation of
learning, and
• tasks that lead to richer and/or more effective collaborative
learning than is possible with 2D alternatives [12].
Current research questions of computer science education [16]
comprise
• the development of a notion for programming (teaching a
mental model of how the computer interprets and executes
programs, see [8]),
• programming as a notation for thinking (which form/visualization
of programming can support learning?), and

VRST ’20, November 1–4, 2020, Virtual Event, Canada Pirker et al.
• representing execution (finding fitting visualizations of the
program’s execution to teach the selected mental model).
The issues raised within these current research questions could
be addressed using the named affordances of virtual learning en-
vironments combined with immersive technologies (namely fully
immersive virtual reality environments).
While the potential for using immersive media in the classroom
is great, many challenges and open questions still remain in this
field and the design and development efforts are also referred to
as "largely hit-and-miss, driven by intuition and ‘common-sense’
extrapolations rather than being solidly underpinned by research-
informed models and frameworks" [12].
To better understand the VR space for computer science ed-
ucation, its challenges and also useful but also still suboptimal
application scenarios, we present a formal literature review of VR
experiences for computer science education. We focus our work
on research and development efforts for a fully immersive VR ex-
perience using technologies designed for consumer experiences
(since 2013). We categorize the work in terms of used technologies,
the primary educational goals, and processes, and the identified
benefits and issues.
2 IMMERSIVE VIRTUAL REALITY FOR
EDUCATION
We describe in more detail the potential of immersive VR for edu-
cation for various fields outside computer science education (CSE)
before presenting the literature review.
Immersive virtual educational environments show merit in im-
proving student learning. In a ten-year review of educational ap-
plications of VR, Mikropoulos [23] finds that features such as first-
order experience, natural semantics, size, transduction, reification,
autonomy, and presence contribute to learning with virtual educa-
tional environments. Further, constructivism seems to be the most
popular approach on which the didactic design is often based when
VR devices are used for teaching and learning. Avatars and the
user’s relationship to them offer a new dimension to computer-
assisted learning. Since these characteristics can only be exploited
in dependence on the educational context and content [23], reviews
such as the one presented in this paper can benefit from focusing
on a specific topic, such as CS, to capture the potential of immersive
media for specific content and contexts. Freina and Ott (2015) [17]
discuss the findings of a literature review on immersive VR ap-
plications for educational benefits and issues. Between 2013 and
2014 they identified 93 relevant papers describing immersive VR
applications for education. Most of the papers refer to subjects such
as medicine, physics, or chemistry. Most of the applications address
adult vocational training or high school and university education;
only a few VR experiences relate to younger elementary school
pupils. The authors summarize the following motives for using VR:
access to times and historical periods that are normally not acces-
sible (e.g. time travel to learn about history); access to places and
experiences that are not physically accessible (e.g. travel in the solar
system); access to places which are normally too dangerous (e.g.
firefighter training); access to experiences with ethical problems
(e.g. surgery by non-experts). They summarize benefits such as
increased motivation, control over students, training of dangerous
or expensive scenarios, feeling of presence, and time.
Previous work has also discussed the potential of VR for educa-
tional settings. Bricken (1991) [9] discusses advantages such as the
experiential nature of VR, the ability to interact with information
in a natural way, the options for shared experiences, control over
time, scale, and physics, and the potential to tailor the experience
to individuals.
Bricken also describes challenges, such as cost, usability, and
fears about the technology. He describes the system usability and
usability of the interfaces for students (of different ages), teachers,
and curriculum designers as the most important issues for integrat-
ing VR into classrooms. In addition, he describes various fears and
concerns in the educational field, such as fear of VR misurse, loss
of control, or the fear of confusion.
Due to these opportunities and challenges alike, the use of VR in
computer science education needs a solid understanding of both the
subject-related benefits and potholes. Analyzing existing research
on the use of immersive media for teaching computer science in
terms of relevance, learning objectives, reported advantages, used
technologies, interaction characteristics, target groups, and corre-
sponding engagement strategies, as well as issues and problems,
can help enhancing strengths and avoiding or tackling weaknesses.
To foster evidence-based design, research, and practice related to
teaching and learning Computer Science with VR, this paper ad-
dresses seven research questions:
• RQ1 How relevant is the topic learning and teaching com-
puter science topics with VR in relation to the numbers of
research publication?
• RQ2 What are the learning scenarios and reported learning
objectives regarding computer science education?
• RQ3 What are the reported advantages of using VR for reach-
ing the learning objectives?
• RQ4 What technologies were used for the VR experiences?
• RQ5 What forms of locomotion and interaction with the
environment are implemented within the VRs?
• RQ6 What are the distinguished target groups and which
engagement strategies were chosen regarding the respective
target group?
• RQ7 What issues and problems were reported within the
studies?
3 METHOD
The primary goal of this work is to identify and discuss relevant
literature on fully immersive VR experiences for computer science
education. In this review study, we followed the PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guide-
lines [20]. Liberati et al. propose the stages Identification, Screening,
Eligibility, and Included. We used four literature databases: ACM
Digital Library, Scopus, SpringerLink, and IEEE Xplore. To be in-
cluded, the paper must be (1) from a peer-reviewed conference
or journal, (2) be written in English, (3) be published after 2013
(the release of the Oculus Rift DK1), (4) focus on computer science
education topic and (5) use VR technology. Figure 1 illustrates the
process.

Virtual Reality in Computer Science Education: A Systematic Review VRST ’20, November 1–4, 2020, Virtual Event, Canada
Figure 1: Search criteria diagram according to PRISMA
guidelines
3.1 Search Criteria
For the literature collection in the Identification phase, we used
an advanced search function with an input search term of "virtual
reality" and "computer science education". The last search was carried
out on December 28, 2019. These articles were then reviewed by
four researchers in the field (authors of this paper). We identified
211 papers. After the Screening process, 10 duplicates were removed.
141 papers were removed because they did not meet the inclusion
criteria. After reading the full texts, 47 papers were excluded in the
Eligibility phase because they did not report on an implemented
virtual educational environment, did not use immersive technology,
or did not focus on computer science education topics. Paper [26]
was identified as an early work in progress of Paper [27]. In the
end, 12 studies were included in the qualitative analysis (Included
phase).
3.2 Categorization Criteria
To categorize the selected papers, we used the year of publication
of each article, the technology used (e.g. computer, mobile phone
with/without a headset, or a professional head-mounted display),
the level of immersion (immersive or non-immersive), the learning
objectives, and the form of the social experience in the virtual
environment (individual or collaborative).
4 RESULTS
Our final corpus is summarized in Table 1 and contains 13 papers.
The papers [27] and [26] describe the same VR environment from
different perspectives, thus both papers are referenced in this review.
From the categorization made, we analyzed the learning scenarios
and learning objectives of the studies, the technologies used, the
interaction characteristics, the target groups, the effects of the
interaction characteristics on user learning outcomes, the use cases,
and the problems.
4.1 Trend of the Number of Publications
Figure 2: Number of publications over the years.
Over the last seven years, research interest in the field of VR for
computer science education has increased in the beginning, but was
constant since 2016 with three papers a year. With only 13 papers
in total, the interest in this topic can be described as relatively low.
As shown in Figure 2, the majority of articles focusing on immer-
sive applications for computer science education were published
between 2016 and 2019. Only one publication using immersive VR
could be found in 2015. All publications that were identified in the
selection phase for the years 2013-2014 were excluded because they
use non-immersive technologies.
4.2 Learning Scenarios and Learning Objectives
Learning objectives in immersive learning environments (see Ta-
ble 2) are found at all cognitive levels. Some studies reported the
intended learning objectives directly using Bloom’s operators for
describing activities on the different cognitive levels. For the other
studies, the intended learning objectives were concluded from the
activities within the virtual environments, assuming some form of
constructive alignment [5] between the learning activities and the
intended learning objectives.
Some applications focus on Bloom’s cognitive level of the re-
membering content [6], e.g. remembering filter rules for firewall
concepts [30] or internalizing software architecture models [31].
When using VR for these learning objectives, having the content
presented accurately would appear to be an essential requirement.
The learning content is presented in text, audio, or graphic forms.
Others focus on understanding concepts, such as the concept
of finite state machines [13] or fundamental programming princi-
ples [19]. VR can contribute to learning by providing metaphorical
explanations for CS concepts, such as the use of analogies [14]
for visual representations in the virtual educational environment.
Analogies used to teach computer science, e.g. by engaging students
in hands-on computer science unplugged activities [2], can be trans-
lated into virtual environments as ’computer science replugged’
activities [14].
Application skills still represent the majority of CS learning objec-
tives, as many immersive educational virtual environments focus
on coding skills (e.g. [36]; [32]; [33]; [3]). Here, VR is used for

Table 1: Corpus of fully immersive VR experiences for computer science education after 2013.
Year Ref Topics Technology Social
2015 [36] basic components of algorithms Oculus Rift yes
2016 [27] [26] various fundamental computer science concepts Oculus Rift, Kinect no
[18] express creativity and innovation Oculus Rift no
2017 [10] creativity and invention skills Oculus Rift yes
[32] object oriented programming and binary search Oculus Rift, Corner Cave no
[30] firewall security concepts Mobile VR, HTC Vive no
2018 [13] finite state machine HTC Vive no
[24] bubble sort Mobile VR no
[37] network security concepts Mobile VR no
2019 [33] object oriented programming not described no
[3] basic components of algorithms HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Mobile VR no
[19] basic components of algorithms HTC Vive yes
modeling approaches to support an active design process. In many
projects, the students learn coding by programming and testing the
VR, rather than learning inside an existing VR.
Some approaches focus on higher cognitive levels, such as cre-
ation in the sense of invention skills [10]. Harms and Hastings
propose a model where students can improve their creativity and
inventiveness by developing projects involving VR technology [18].
In addition, some of the applications enable social experiences in
the virtual environment to support collaborative learning (e.g. [19];
[10]).
While the majority of computer science education learning ob-
jectives focus on cognitive learning outcomes, the named projects
involving teamwork or raising awareness for cybersecurity issues
show that immersive technology can be beneficial for Bloom’s af-
fective domain as well [6]. There are no examples of computer
science education topics in the selected papers that refer to the
psychomotor domain, but there are other impressive examples for
using immersive technologies for this domain of educational objec-
tives (such as [4]).
4.3 Advantages
The authors have described various advantages of VR in learning
settings.
• Interaction and Immersion [27] use immersive embodied
interaction, combining an HMD with a Kinect sensor. They
have been able to stimulate interest in computer science edu-
cation in middle school students and change their perception
of computing. They use VR to engage students in embodied
activities to promote embodied thinking and cognition.
• Visualization and Metaphors Several authors have de-
scribed the visualization of complex topics as a useful ele-
ment of VR experiences for teaching theoretical concepts
such as algorithm or OOP [13, 27, 33]. The use of analo-
gies and metaphors for constructing mental models seem to
benefit from immersive media and the perception of non-
mediation.
• Playful Design Another possibility of using VR is the play-
ful design. Several authors describe playful, educational en-
tertainment strategies combined with VR [30, 36, 37]. This
strategy has often been described when teaching program-
ming but also security concepts.
• Social Experiences While social experiences are an essen-
tial element for learning STEM fields, only two of the experi-
ences described have used social elements as part of the VR
experience. Collaboration as an element was mainly used in
experiences for learning programming.
In summary, the following main advantages of VR were de-
scribed: engagement, playfulness, visualizations, collaboration, con-
tent as a metaphor, learners experience content.
4.4 Used Technologies
We have summarized various technologies used in the literature
in Figure 3. It illustrates a higher trend for VR setups running
on PCs (such as Oculus Rift or HTC Vive) than mobile VR expe-
rience or CAVE-like experiences. Most experiences use an HTC
Vive or the Oculus Rift as HMD [19]. When using mobile VR, per-
formance issues or graphical issues have often been described as
potential problems. Many authors used the game engine Unity in
combination with a VR toolkit such as VRTK1 to develop the VR
experience[19].
Figure 3: Distribution of VR technologies used in the litera-
ture
1https://vrtoolkit.readme.io/

Table 2: CS learning concepts taught in VR.
CS Concept Learning Objectives Concept of VR Ref
OOP Learners can design and implement a class, correctly
reason about control flow in a program, and use
object-oriented encapsulation mechanisms such as
private members.
visualization for understanding [33]
Programming, Cod-
ing
Learners can change variables, use functions, and
create a new object; learners can solve puzzle tasks
with loops and if-then-else conditions using a vi-
sual scripting language; learners can apply the Bub-
ble Sort algorithm to sort balls; learners can apply
inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation in
C++ code; learners can use simple algorithmic com-
ponents (e.g. conditions, loops) for manouvering
robots.
playful concepts, engagement,
joy, collaborative learning
[3, 19, 24,
32, 36]
Computational
Thinking
Learners can program dance moves using loops and
conditions
embodied activity, natural em-
bodied thinking and cognition,
critical thinking via physical ac-
tions
[26, 27]
System Develop-
ment
Learners can spatially organize learning materials
and working documents in collaborative spaces.
spatial freedom, creative inter-
actions, innovation
[10]
Security Concepts Learners can explain the security concept of a
packet-filtering firewall; learners can differentiate
IT security terms and can explain them.
playful interactions, educa-
tional entertainment, engaging
students
[30, 37]
Theoretical CS Learners can draw finite state machines and navi-
gate between states
visualization of FSM, metaphor-
ical learning
[13]
Innovation, Inven-
tion Skills, Project-
oriented working
Learners can apply knowledge to solve product-
oriented tasks in formal learning setting
student-led VR projects [18]
4.5 Interaction Characteristics
A different locomotion system can lead to a significant difference
in the user experience. Often the target group for CS training using
VR has no previous experience with VR environments. The choice
of an uncomfortable locomotion system can lead to cybersickness,
nausea, a strong reduction of user engagement, and the termina-
tion of additional VR sessions. Tanielu et al. [33], for instance, used
teleportation for locomotion in their mobile VR application. Tele-
portation in VR applications is one of the easiest ways to avoid
most problems of locomotion.
4.6 Target Groups and Engagement Strategies
The described target groups of the analyzed publications are mainly
high school and university students. Different application scenarios
were developed for different target groups. Especially for younger
students engagement strategies are an important element of expe-
rience design
Today’s students are used to engaging, self-directed, and flexible
learning methods. The lack of interest shown by students in sci-
entific topics is still a great challenge for schools and universities.
Immersive and engaging learning methods should help to reach the
new generation of learners. The entertainment application VEnvI
[26], for instance, attempts to appeal to middle school students
by combining computational thinking with dance and movement
choreography. The aim is to engage young students through fun
and an intuitive interface. Another approach to spark the inter-
est in computer science of this generation of learners is used by
the browser-based, educational platform MYR ("My Reality") [3].
The authors provide an environment for building VR scenes by
applying programming concepts to increase the students’ interest
in computer science topics.
Most of the educational VR applications in the field of computer
science other than in schools are aimed at undergraduate university
students. Computational topics are perceived by students as difficult
to understand and lead to high dropout and failure rates. To support
computer science students in understanding abstract topics, Dengel
[13] and Tanielu et al. [33] used metaphorical representations and
analogies using VR technologies. In addition to understanding the
theoretical concepts, it is also important for CS students to learn
creativity, inventiveness, and innovation skills. The immersive VR
system developed by Bujdosó et al. [10] contains several methods
that can be used for activating cognitive processes and to improve
students’ inventive thinking.
4.7 Issues and Problems
One major challenge described by several authors is the interaction
with programming interfaces in virtual environments. These are
often not intuitive and described as cumbersome [27]. One common
issue is the design of the user interface (UI) and the introduction

of UI elements. UI elements are often designed similarly to their
2D twins. However, a significant major advantage of VR is its im-
mersion and feeling of presence. Traditional menus, buttons, or
UI elements break this immersion. This is also shown in the study
by Horst et al. [19]. HMDs and interaction systems of VR allow
embodiment. To give a better feeling of presence or embodiment,
we suggest using 3D-interactive objects into the scene where users
can interact with them in a physical, natural, and intuitive way.
User acceptance has also been described as an issue. The study
by Bujdoso et al. [10] shows that students are not willing to use
VR to communicate during the project. They prefer to use tradi-
tional social applications like Whatsapp. This shows that this VR
application does not provide them with any additional benefit in
communication. It is an important point when we think about the
use of disruptive technologies. Even if the experience is interesting
at the beginning, the everyday use will depend on the usability and
the benefits of these technologies. It seems that in the case of the
social application of VR, further interactions and tools need to be
implemented to create a richer environment. These tools should be
designed explicitly for VR to provide a user-friendly experience.
In this paper, we have focused on the review and discussion
of pedagogical applications whose main interaction is designed
primarily for VR. However, several publications also describe 3D
experiences, which are designed for PCs, but also work with VR. An
example is discussed in [7]. They present a playful 3D environment
for exploring basic computer science concepts and offer an optional
VR mode (for HTC Vive). However, these systems are often not
specifically designed for VR or interactions in VR, which can lead to
significant usability and experience flaws [9]. When working with
game engines like Unity, the integration of a VR viewer into an
existing game/3D application is a simple task. However, this only
applies to the interaction with the camera. VR applications require
a suitable interaction design with the VR experience. This usually
requires a different form of interaction with the environment, new
menu designs, and also well-designed solutions for locomotion to
avoid nausea and discomfort.
4.8 Corner Cases: VR Projects as a Teaching
Tool
In recent years, VR has become more and more popular not only as
a learning platform but also as a technology used for teaching and
engaging through the development for VR. In [39], for instance,
the authors describe the use of VR to bring computer science and
art students together to create VR experiences. In [38], the authors
describe how to engage students by writing VR programs. In [1],
the authors describe the potential of VR to engage CS students and
use it in areas such as computer graphics, gaming, or simulations.
Reasons are often given to engage students with this innovative and
interesting technology and enable them to see their developments
in a more appealing way (see also the Hour of Code for Virtual
Reality project [21]). This is becoming increasingly important as
students can easily experience their VR applications on their smart-
phones. In summary, working on a virtual reality project as part
of the curriculum has several advantages [18]. Computer science
curricula should prepare students for the industry. Students should
be familiarized with different technologies, tools, and programming
languages. They should also learn soft skills such as communica-
tion, teamwork, and problem solving. And they should know how
to work on a large project as part of an interdisciplinary team. In
[18], the authors describe how working for several months on a vir-
tual reality project helped students not only to learn new tools and
techniques, but also to acquire essential skills such as teamwork,
project management, and organization. Furthermore, students were
able to express innovation and creativity, which are necessary and
effective skills for their future career.
5 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
The results show that the research interest in the use of VR for
the teaching of CS has grown in recent years (RQ1). The learning
objectives cover a wide range of CS topics: While programming
skills are sometimes taught by developing and testing VR programs,
existing applications can be used in the classroom to teach about
other concepts and ideas of CS such as IT security, theoretical com-
puter science, and creativity skills. Most learning objectives focus
on application skills (i.e. programming and problem-solving skills);
some focus on understanding concepts (RQ2). Most studies reported
positive effects of the use of immersive media for educational pur-
poses, particularly in terms of interaction, immersion, visualization,
playful design, use of metaphors and analogies, and social experi-
ences (RQ3). Most VR programs use professional VR headsets (e.g.
the Oculus Rift or the HTC Vive), some use Mobile VR devices, and
only one was identified using a CAVE system, which shows that the
opportunities of VR can be exploited best by using an HMD device
(RQ4). In most VR experiences, teleportation has been used as a
way to interact with the environment in a comfortable way (RQ5).
In addition, most studies focus on target groups from schools; some
use VR for undergraduate students. Efforts to engage the students
are made primarily by selecting themes from the target group’s
everyday life or age-appropriate interests (RQ6). In addition to the
positive effects, some issues include the current unfamiliarity with
the medium, which leads to insecurity on the side of the students,
the transformation of 2D user interfaces into 3D environments, as
well as cybersickness (RQ7).
A large part of the analyzed literature had to be excluded as it
focused on non-immersive applications for CS education, or did not
refer to CS education at all. While these articles were excluded from
this analysis, it must be considered that they still contribute to the
overall research on the use of virtual worlds for computer science
education. In particular, the efforts to create hands-on activities to
transfer computer science unplugged projects [2] to virtual expe-
riences (see e.g. [34]) show merit in instrumentalizing interactive
playful 3D-environments for learning. Future work can benefit from
adding the results of those non-immersive efforts to the insights
gathered in this review. It was also a problem that the term VR is
often used for non-immersive experiences. Another challenge that
had to be faced when writing this paper was that, on the one hand,
not all studies clearly formulated the learning objectives, which led
the authors to summarize them from the reported user stories or
the design of the environments. On the other hand, some studies
reported the learning objectives in detail, but gave only little infor-
mation on the technology used or the design of the environments
(e.g. interaction characteristics, etc.). It should be noted that the

conclusions drawn from the studies are often based on qualitative
measures or reports from participants. Thus, the results of this sys-
tematic review "best-practice" guidelines rather than being purely
evidence-based. It is the task of the studies to estimate e.g. the effect
of sizes of using immersive technology for learning about computer
science concepts.
6 CONCLUSION
In this paper, we reviewed publications on VR experiences for com-
puter science education to gain a better understanding of oppor-
tunities, challenges, and application scenarios. While the interest
in the use of virtual experiences and virtual environments is high,
the use of fully immersive VR technologies is still at an early stage.
Several studies already reported on the potential of VR and im-
mersive experiences for computer science education many years
ago. Now, with access to affordable and high-quality HMDs such
as the HTC Vive or the Oculus Rift, new and innovative teaching
approaches for computer science education in the classroom and
also for self-regulated learning scenarios can be implemented and
tested. But this innovative, educational medium opens up new per-
spectives for the design and integration of immersive experiences
in the classroom. The design of virtual environments can be used
for teaching programming or existing environments can be used to
focus on theoretical concepts of CS. In the latter case, the results of
this systematic review could show that the professional design of
immersive virtual environments for teaching and learning CS
• can focus on a large variety of topics and is not bound to a
particular level of cognitive complexity,
• should make use of interaction, immersion, visualization,
playful design, use metaphors and analogies, and social ex-
periences within the virtual environments to support factors
relevant for learning activities and learning outcomes,
• might have the best effect when using HMD devices, but has
to keep the schools’ technological equipment in mind (in
favor for multi-platform solutions, whenever possible),
• can benefit from using teleportation as a method of locomo-
tion as a best-practice guideline to avoid cybersickness,
• can add to the target group’s motivation by arranging stories
about themes that are relevant/interesting and age-appropriate
for the students,
• should try to minimize potential risks within the environ-
ment causing cybersickness and keep the controls as simple
as possible to reduce insecurity,
• can benefit from social experiences to support pedagogical
models which rely on peer discussions.
When using educational virtual environments in the classroom,
the findings of this study show that
• the virtual environment often resolves around a specific
learning objective, which means that careful considerations
need to be made in order to embed the immersive experience
within the overall teaching sequence (e.g. as motivation, for
showing a problem, for acquiring fundamentals for solving
a problem, etc., see [35])
• educational media with a higher level of technological im-
mersion should be preferred, if they are available to enhance
the effects of the experience on learning activities and fac-
tors influencing learning such as engagement, presence, and
motivation.
• to avoid insecurity, teachers can integrate an additional intro-
duction phase (especially when using VR for the first time)
in which the students get comfortable with the common con-
trols. Teachers should also be present to support insecure
students during the VR experience or to provide different
tasks if students feel cybersick.
With regard to current issues of computer science education
research [16], VR can support the development of a notion for pro-
gramming in such a way that situated learning and active learning
in immersive educational virtual environments can support the
construction of a mental model. Programming as a notation for
thinking can benefit from various playful ways to design algorithms
in interactive VRs, or to design interactive VRs using algorithms.
This is also the main characteristic that differentiates the use of VR
for CSE compared to other subjects: educational virtual environ-
ments can be used for teaching and learning various concepts and
ideas, but also the design process of a VR can be utilized to learn
about programming, object-oriented programming, and project-
oriented working. The use of visualizations, especially the use of
analogies and metaphors, can add value to the question of how
execution is represented.
Although this review has identified many advantages and inter-
esting use cases of virtual reality in computer science education,
the limited number of only 13 relevant papers shows that there
is still a lot of potential for research and development. There are
many potential paths for future work that can be taken from here.
The concepts of embodied activities and metaphorical learning in
VR as presented by [13, 26, 27] have shown interesting first results.
However, the number of studies and developed VR experiences in
this field is still very limited and leaves much room for further in-
vestigations. Playful approaches were also suggested as a valuable
tool for learning computer science topics [25], but only very few re-
viewed VR experiences have included game elements in their work.
Investigating the effect of playful VR experiences on the learning of
computer science topics in VR can also open up new research paths.
Another still open, but very important pedagogical aspect that was
missing in the reviewed work is also the discussion and investiga-
tion of how virtual reality can be integrated in the curriculum and
how it can be part of a classroom experience. Setting up VR experi-
ences can be a challenging task as they require space and additional
setup time [29]. Further investigations of potential use cases in
classrooms is an important gap for future work. Furthermore, most
of the reviewed papers have identified the potential of VR from the
students’ perspectives. Future research should also address require-
ments, potential issues, and potential use cases from the teacher’s
perspective as this perspective is often not given enough attention
in the development of learning environments [28].
With these considerations in mind, VR experiences could be a
viable method to support the teaching and learning of CS. As dis-
cussed above, there were several issues in which either the pedagog-
ical or the technological side of current VR experiences suffer from
poor considerations or a lack of information in the analyzed doc-
uments. This need calls for collaborations between educators and

game designers for future studies. We believe that there are many
opportunities for fully-immersive VR applications for computer
science education, and with interdisciplinary teamwork, immersive
learning could have the potential to shape the future of how we
teach and learn computer science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable and helpful
comments to improve this work.
REFERENCES
[1] Joel C Adams and Joshua Hotrop. 2008. Building an economical VR system for
CS education. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 40. ACM, 148–152.
[2] Tim Bell, Frances Rosamond, and Nancy Casey. 2012. Computer Science Unplugged
and Related Projects in Math and Computer Science Popularization. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 398–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
30891-8_18
[3] Christopher Berns, Grace Chin, Joel Savitz, Jason Kiesling, and Fred Martin. 2019.
MYR: A Web-Based Platform for Teaching Coding Using VR. In Proceedings of
the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 77–83.
[4] Rasiah Bharathan, Saaliha Vali, Thomas Setchell, Tariq Miskry, Ara Darzi, and
Rajesh Aggarwal. 2013. Psychomotor skills and cognitive load training on a virtual
reality laparoscopic simulator for tubal surgery is effective. European journal
of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 169, 2 (July 2013), 347—352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.017
[5] John Biggs. 2003. Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Interna-
tional Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New trend and
innovations 2 (01 2003), 1–9.
[6] B.S. Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals. Number Bd. 1 in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The
Classification of Educational Goals. D. McKay. https://books.google.de/books?
id=hos6AAAAIAAJ
[7] Santiago Bolivar, Daniel Perez, Armando Carrasquillo, Adam S Williams, Naph-
tali D Rishe, and Francisco R Ortega. 2019. 3D Interaction for Computer Science
Educational VR Game. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interac-
tion. Springer, 408–419.
[8] Benedict Du Boulay. 1986. Some Difficulties of Learning to Program. Journal of
Educational Computing Research 2, 1 (1986), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.2190/3LFX-
9RRF-67T8-UVK9 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.2190/3LFX-9RRF-67T8-UVK9
[9] Meredith Bricken. 1991. Virtual reality learning environments: potentials and
challenges. Acm Siggraph Computer Graphics 25, 3 (1991), 178–184.
[10] Gyöngyi Bujdosó, Ovidiu Constantin Novac, and Tamás Szimkovics. 2017. Devel-
oping cognitive processes for improving inventive thinking in system develop-
ment using a collaborative virtual reality system. In 2017 8th IEEE International
Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). IEEE, 000079–000084.
[11] Carolina Cruz-Neira, Daniel J Sandin, Thomas A DeFanti, Robert V Kenyon,
and John C Hart. 1992. The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual
environment. Commun. ACM 35, 6 (1992), 64–73.
[12] Barney Dalgarno and Mark JW Lee. 2010. What are the learning affordances of
3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology 41, 1 (2010),
10–32.
[13] Andreas Dengel. 2018. Seeking the Treasures of Theoretical Computer Science
Education: Towards Educational Virtual Reality for the Visualization of Finite
State Machines. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment,
and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, 1107–1112.
[14] Andreas Dengel. 2019. Computer Science Replugged: What Is the Use of Virtual
Reality in Computer Science Education? (WiPSCE’19). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article Article 21, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3361721.3362113
[15] Andreas Dengel and Jutta Mägdefrau. 2020. Immersive Learning Predicted: Pres-
ence, Prior Knowledge, and School Performance Influence Learning Outcomes in
Immersive Educational Virtual Environments. In 2020 6th International Conference
of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN). 163–170.
[16] Sally A. Fincher and Anthony V. Robins. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of
Computing Education Research. Cambridge University Press. https://books.
google.de/books?id=ppiHDwAAQBAJ
[17] Laura Freina and Michela Ott. 2015. A literature review on immersive virtual
reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In The International Scientific
Conference eLearning and Software for Education, Vol. 1. " Carol I" National Defence
University, 133.
[18] S. Harms and J. Hastings. 2016. A cross-curricular approach to fostering innova-
tion such as virtual reality development through student-led projects. In 2016
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.
2016.7757628
[19] Robin Horst, Ramtin Naraghi-Taghi-Off, Savina Diez, Tobias Uhmann, Arne
Müller, and Ralf Dörner. 2019. FunPlogs–A Serious Puzzle Mini-game for Learning
Fundamental Programming Principles Using Visual Scripting. In International
Symposium on Visual Computing. Springer, 494–504.
[20] Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Pe-
ter C Gøtzsche, John PA Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen,
and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation
and elaboration. PLoS medicine 6, 7 (2009), e1000100.
[21] Jason Madar, Adina Goldberg, and Kim Lam. 2018. Hour of code With Virtual
Reality. In Proceedings of the 23rd Western Canadian Conference on Computing
Education. ACM, 16.
[22] Tomasz Mazuryk and Michael Gervautz. 1996. Virtual reality-history, applica-
tions, technology and future. (1996).
[23] Tassos A. Mikropoulos and Antonis Natsis. 2011. Educational virtual environ-
ments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers and
Education 56, 3 (2011), 769 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020
[24] S. Nicola, L. Stoicu-Tivadar, and A. Patrascoiu. 2018. VR for Education in Informa-
tion and Tehnology: application for Bubble Sort. In 2018 International Symposium
on Electronics and Telecommunications (ISETC). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ISETC.2018.8583999
[25] Marina Papastergiou. 2009. Digital game-based learning in high school computer
science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation.
Computers & education 52, 1 (2009), 1–12.
[26] Dhaval Parmar, Sabarish V Babu, Lorraine Lin, Sophie Jörg, Nikeetha D’Souza,
Alison E Leonard, and Shaundra B Daily. 2016. Can embodied interaction and
virtual peer customization in a virtual programming environment enhance com-
putational thinking?. In 2016 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in
Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEEE, 1–2.
[27] Dhaval Parmar, Joseph Isaac, Sabarish V Babu, Nikeetha D’Souza, Alison E
Leonard, Sophie Jörg, Kara Gundersen, and Shaundra B Daily. 2016. Program-
ming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual
environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In
2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). IEEE, 131–140.
[28] Johanna Pirker, Michael Holly, Hannes Almer, Christian Gütl, and John Winston
Belcher. 2019. Virtual Reality STEM Education from a Teacher’s Perspective. In
iLRN 2019 London, Workshop, Long and Short Paper, and Poster Proceedings: from
the Fifth Immersive. Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz.
[29] Johanna Pirker, Michael Holly, and Christian Gütl. 2020. Room Scale Virtual
Reality Physics Education: Use Cases for the Classroom. In 2020 6th International
Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN). IEEE, 242–246.
[30] Nuntapob Puttawong, Vasaka Visoottiviseth, and Jason Haga. 2017. VRFiWall
virtual reality edutainment for firewall security concepts. In 2017 2nd International
Conference on Information Technology (INCIT). IEEE, 1–6.
[31] Claudia Susie C Rodrigues. 2010. VisAr3D: An approach to software architec-
ture teaching based on virtual and augmented reality. In 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd
International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. IEEE, 351–352.
[32] James Stigall and Sharad Sharma. 2017. Virtual reality instructional modules
for introductory programming courses. In 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education
Conference (ISEC). IEEE, 34–42.
[33] Tevita Tanielu, Raymond Akau’ola, Elliot Varoy, and Nasser Giacaman. 2019.
Combining Analogies and Virtual Reality for Active and Visual Object-Oriented
Programming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Educa-
tion. ACM, 92–98.
[34] D.J. Thompson. 2019. Instrumenting 3D Virtual Worlds for Computer Science Edu-
cation to Support Teaching and Learning: A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy [in the Department
of Computer Science and Software Engineering] in the University of Canterbury.
University of Canterbury. https://books.google.de/books?id=WqBzzQEACAAJ
[35] Gerhard Tulodziecki, Silke Grafe, and Bardo Herzig. 2019. Medienbildung in
Schule und Unterricht: Grundlagen und Beispiele. UTB GmbH. https://books.
google.de/books?id=MAGWDwAAQBAJ
[36] Michael Vallance, Kenta Ibayashi, and Yuta Goto. 2015. Engineering Active
Learning in 3D Virtual Worlds. In International Workshop on Learning Technology
for Education in Cloud. Springer, 268–282.
[37] V. Visoottiviseth, A. Phungphat, N. Puttawong, P. Chantaraumporn, and J. Haga.
2018. Lord of Secure: the Virtual Reality Game for Educating Network Security. In
2018 Seventh ICT International Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC). 1–6. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/ICT-ISPC.2018.8523947
[38] John M Zelle and Charles Figura. 2004. Simple, low-cost stereographics: VR for
everyone. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 36. ACM, 348–352.
[39] Guy W Zimmerman and Dena E Eber. 2001. When worlds collide!: an interdis-
ciplinary course in virtual-reality art. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 33. ACM,
75–79.

virtual reality.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to virtual reality.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

virtual reality.pdf