Students' perspectives

1. Engagement

This section of the report presents the comprehensive findings from our investigation into student engagement in the pilot teaching activities. We aimed to discern how various variables such as gender, educational level, pilot type, technological tools, special educational needs, and socio-economic background influence student engagement. To offer a structured and clear presentation of our findings, all results have been meticulously compiled in Table 2.

In the study, analysis of the impact of gender and educational level on student engagement in a pilot teaching activity revealed no significant differences for either factor. This suggests a uniform level of engagement across genders and educational stages, indicating that the pilot was effectively accessible and appealing to a diverse demographic. Such findings align with the view that intrinsic characteristics like gender and age may not be the primary determinants of engagement in structured educational settings. This perspective is supported by research indicating that the design and delivery of teaching activities play a more pivotal role than the intrinsic characteristics of students (Lowe & El Hakim, 2020; Zepke, 2015). Therefore, the design of the pilot teaching activity, which transcended gender and educational level differences, could be considered a key factor in achieving consistent engagement among students.

A significant difference was observed in student engagement between pilot activities conducted in a single session versus those extended over several sessions (project format). Specifically, students participating in single-session activities reported higher levels of engagement, both in 'Perception' and 'Comparison' metrics. This finding suggests that the concise and focused nature of shorter activities might be more effective in capturing and maintaining student attention, as opposed to multi-session projects. This aligns with educational research suggesting that focused, well-structured activities are better suited for sustaining student engagement in classroom settings (Myers, 2019). The implication here is that while multi-session projects offer depth and continuity, the intensity and concentrated experience of single-session activities may be more engaging for students, potentially due to their direct and immediate nature, which can foster a sense of accomplishment and interest.

In the examination of student engagement with different technological tools, specifically Virtual Reality (VR) and Web-based technologies, our study found no significant differences in terms of student engagement. This result was consistent in both the 'Perception' and 'Comparison' measures of engagement. This suggests that the type of technology used, whether VR or Web-based, does not inherently influence student engagement levels. The absence of significant differences highlights a pivotal point: it may not be the technological medium per se that drives engagement, but rather how it is integrated into the teaching activity. As posited by Bond et al. (2020), the effective pedagogical use of technology, irrespective of its novelty or sophistication, is crucial in fostering student engagement. This finding emphasizes the importance of the educational approach and method of technology implementation over the specific type of technology employed in the educational setting.

A significant finding emerged regarding students with special educational needs (SEN). The analysis revealed that students with high SEN reported substantially higher levels of engagement in the pilot activity compared to their usual classroom experiences. This was assessed through the 'Comparison' metric, indicating that the pilot was particularly effective for students requiring special educational support. This finding can be interpreted in the light of existing research, suggesting that the increased engagement among students with SEN may be attributed to the pilot's inclusive and differentiated instructional approach. Educational interventions that are tailored to meet diverse learning needs, as suggested by Ebede (2018), are known to be more effective for students with SEN. Therefore, our pilot activity's design, which likely emphasized responsiveness to these students' unique requirements, could explain the heightened engagement observed in this group. This highlights the importance of developing educational strategies that are not only inclusive but also specifically attuned to the needs of students with SEN, underscoring the value of personalized and adaptive teaching methods in enhancing educational experiences for all learners.

The investigation into the influence of socio-economic background revealed no significant differences in engagement levels between students from low and non-low socio-economic backgrounds. This finding suggests that the pilot teaching activity was designed and delivered in a manner equitable to all students, effectively engaging individuals irrespective of their socio-economic status. Such results align with the notion that educational interventions, when inclusively and thoughtfully implemented, can bridge the engagement gap often observed across socio-economic divides. This is supported by Nguyen (2019), who emphasized the potential of well-designed educational practices to engage a diverse student body, and by Bond et al. (2020), who highlighted the role of equitable educational approaches in fostering inclusive learning environments. Thus, the study's outcome underscores the importance of developing educational strategies that are accessible and appealing to a wide spectrum of students, thereby promoting equal opportunities for engagement and learning.

2. Interest

This section presents the findings on student interest in the pilot teaching activity, as quantified through two distinct measures: "Perception" and "Comparison." These results shed light on how various factors, including gender, educational level, pilot type, use of technological tools, special educational needs, and socio-economic background, influence student interest in innovative teaching methods. Notably, the study found significant variations in interest levels based on pilot type, educational level, special educational needs, and socio-economic background, while gender and the type of technological tools used did not show a significant impact. The detailed outcomes of these analyses are comprehensively presented in Table 3, which serves as an organized compilation of the results, facilitating a clearer understanding of the factors that drive student interest in educational settings.

The absence of gender differences aligns with studies suggesting that while gender can influence learning preferences, it may not significantly impact interest levels in specific teaching activities (DeVito, 2016). Educational level differences, particularly in the "Comparison" aspect, may be attributed to the developmental and cognitive differences between secondary and university students. University students' greater interest could be linked to their more matured learning approach and readiness for diverse teaching methods (Halawah, 2011).

The finding that students preferred single-session activities over multi-session projects is intriguing. This could be due to the novelty and focused engagement offered by single sessions, which aligns with research emphasizing the importance of novelty and immediate engagement in capturing student interest (Kahu, Nelson, & Picton, 2017). The non-significant impact of technological tools (virtual reality vs. web-based technologies) on interest suggests that while technology enhances learning, its type may not be a primary driver of interest (Pebriantika, Vidianti, & Wijaya, 2020).

Students without high special educational needs displaying significantly higher interest can be understood in the context of the unique challenges faced by students with special needs. These challenges may affect their engagement and interest levels in general classroom activities (Ciani, Ferguson, Bergin, & Hilpert, 2010). Similarly, the socio-economic background's influence might be related to the access and exposure to diverse educational resources, where students from higher socio-economic backgrounds might have more familiarity and thus interest in innovative teaching methods (Athanasou & Cooksey, 2001).

3. Motivation towards learning

This section presents the findings of our study aimed at assessing the impact of a pilot teaching activity on students' motivation towards learning. The results, which are comprehensively compiled in Table 4, reveal intriguing insights into how different variables affect students' motivation and their engagement with the teaching activity. This detailed examination offers a nuanced understanding of the factors that can enhance or impede motivation in educational settings.

In terms of gender, the data indicated no significant difference in the students' perception of the pilot activity's effectiveness (measured on a Likert scale of interest). However, a notable difference emerged in the comparison aspect, with male students showing a higher motivation towards learning than female students. The lack of significant differences in perception but notable differences in comparison between genders may reflect inherent motivational variances. According to Vecchione et al. (2014), gender differences in academic motivation are evident and can influence educational outcomes. This aligns with our finding where male students showed higher motivation in the comparative aspect of the pilot teaching activity.

A significant variance was observed when comparing secondary and university students. University students reported higher levels of interest and motivation in both the perception and comparison aspects of the study. The higher motivation among university students might be related to developmental stages. University students, being older, may possess more intrinsic motivation and cognitive maturity, enhancing their responsiveness to innovative teaching methods. The research by Spinath et al. (2014) supports this, indicating that motivational factors evolve with age and educational advancement.

The format of the teaching activity had a substantial impact. Students exposed to the activity in a single session exhibited greater interest compared to those who experienced it over several sessions (project format). The preference for single-session activities could be due to their concise and focused nature. Meece et al. (2006) discuss how the structure and delivery of educational content significantly impact student engagement and motivation.

The study found no significant differences in student motivation when comparing the use of virtual reality and web-based technologies in the teaching activities. The absence of significant differences in motivation based on the technology used suggests that the nature of technological integration is more crucial than the technology itself. This is supported by Winn (2002), who emphasizes that the effectiveness of technology in education depends on its relevance and application within the learning context.

Students without high special educational needs expressed significantly higher interest in the pilot teaching activity compared to their usual learning experiences, suggesting an increased motivation towards learning. The greater interest shown by students without high special educational needs might highlight a gap in how the pilot activity catered to diverse learning requirements. Research by Vergara et al. (2022) indicates that educational tools and activities often fail to address the unique needs of students with special educational requirements, leading to varied levels of engagement.

Students from low socio-economic backgrounds reported a significantly higher motivation in the perception measure of the pilot activity, indicating a greater engagement and interest compared to their peers from higher socio-economic backgrounds. The higher motivation observed in students from low socio-economic backgrounds in the perception measure could be attributed to their potentially limited exposure to innovative educational experiences. Studies like those by Krčelić (2017) suggest that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds may show increased appreciation and motivation when exposed to novel educational methods they don't commonly encounter.

4. Teamwork, Communication and Collaboration

We present a comprehensive analysis of the impact of a pilot teaching activity designed to enhance Teamwork, Communication, and Collaboration among students. The findings, which are meticulously compiled in Table 5, reveal intriguing patterns.

Notably, the absence of significant differences based on gender, educational level, pilot type, and socio-economic background suggests a universal applicability of the pilot teaching activity across these variables. This aligns with McKay and Sridharan (2023), who noted that collaborative group work in higher education is perceived similarly across different student demographics.

The significant differences observed in the use of technological tools, favoring web-based technologies over virtual reality, can be attributed to the accessibility and familiarity of web-based platforms. This is supported by the findings of Maican et al. (2021), who highlighted the critical role of user-friendliness and accessibility in the effective use of communication and collaboration tools in educational settings.

Interestingly, students without high special educational needs reported significantly higher values in both "Perception" and "Comparison". This could be due to the unique challenges faced by students with special educational needs in collaborative settings, as discussed by Schmalzried and Harvey (2014).

5. Feeling of Connectedness among Students

We present the findings of our study aimed at assessing the Feeling of Connectedness among Students in response to a pilot teaching activity. The results, which are comprehensively compiled in Table 6, offer insightful revelations about the impact of various factors such as gender, educational level, pilot type, use of technological tools, special educational needs, and socioeconomic status on students' sense of connectedness in the educational setting.

The significant gender differences observed in "Perception," with male students reporting higher levels, may be attributed to gender-specific attitudes and approaches to learning. Research indicates that gender can influence how students interact with and perceive their learning environment. This suggests that teaching strategies might need to be tailored to address these differences.

The higher interest in Feeling of Connectedness among university students compared to secondary students in "Comparison" aligns with findings that older students often have more developed social and cognitive skills, impacting their engagement (Permanyer & Boertien, 2019).

The preference for single-session activities over multi-session projects may be related to the immediate and focused nature of shorter interventions, which can be more engaging for students (Freund, 2011).

The lack of significant differences based on the technological tools used suggests that the type of technology may be less important than how it is integrated into the teaching activity (Buchmann et al., 2008).

Students without high special educational needs reporting higher connectedness could reflect the challenges faced by students with special needs in traditional educational settings, underscoring the need for inclusive teaching strategies (Smith, 2015).

The absence of significant differences based on socioeconomic status suggests that the pilot teaching activity was equally effective across diverse economic backgrounds, highlighting its potential for wide applicability (Virtanen et al., 2015).

6. Self-Regulated Learning

This section presents the findings of our study aimed at assessing the impact of the pilot teaching activities on students' self-regulated learning. The results are comprehensively compiled in Table 7.

The absence of significant gender differences in both "Perception" and "Comparison" is consistent with research suggesting that gender may not be a predominant factor influencing self-regulated learning (SRL) outcomes. For instance, Bidjerano (2005) found minimal gender differences in SRL strategies, aligning with our findings that both male and female students similarly perceived the pilot teaching activity.

The significant differences noted between secondary and university students in "Comparison" could be attributed to the developmental stage and academic maturity. University students are often more exposed to self-directed learning approaches, which might explain their greater interest in SRL as found by Virtanen and Nevgi (2010).

The greater perceived benefit of single-session pilots in enhancing SRL can be linked to the focused and intensive nature of such sessions, which may align more with the immediate learning goals of students, as suggested by research on SRL strategies in different learning environments (Guo et al., 2021).

The lack of significant differences in SRL perceptions based on technology type (virtual reality vs. web-based) may indicate that the nature of the technology itself is less influential than how it is used pedagogically, as noted in studies on technology-enhanced learning (Liu et al., 2021).

The higher SRL reported by students without high special educational needs might be due to the additional challenges faced by students with special needs in regulating their learning, as highlighted in the literature (Paz-Baruch & Hazema, 2023).

Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds reporting higher SRL could be reflecting a compensatory mechanism, where students from challenging backgrounds develop stronger self-regulatory skills to cope with their circumstances, as seen in studies on SRL among diverse socioeconomic groups (Paz-Baruch & Hazema, 2023).

7. Communication and Interaction with the Teacher

In this section, we present the comprehensive analysis of our study focused on evaluating the factors influencing student-teacher communication and interaction. The results are systematically compiled in Table 8, providing a clear and organized presentation of our data analysis.

Consistent with the findings of previous research, our study did not observe significant gender differences in perceptions of teacher-student communication (Çakmak & Aktan, 2016). This suggests that communication strategies may be broadly effective across genders.

The significant difference in communication and interaction between secondary and university students can be attributed to developmental and cognitive factors. University students, being older and more mature, may have better communication skills and higher expectations for interaction with teachers (Peng, 2022).

The preference for single-session activities over multiple sessions could be related to focused engagement and concise content delivery, which may foster clearer and more effective communication (Priadi, 2020).

The higher effectiveness of web-based technologies over virtual reality might be due to the former's familiarity and ease of use, facilitating better communication.

Students without high special educational needs reporting higher levels of interaction may be due to these students having fewer barriers in communication and understanding the teaching material (Han, 2017).

Students from low socio-economic backgrounds reporting higher values in comparison may reflect their greater appreciation for educational opportunities, leading to more engagement and interaction (Krahe et al., 2021).

8. Perceived Learning

This section presents the findings related to students' Perceived Learning from the pilot teaching activity. All detailed results and comparative analyses have been meticulously compiled in Table 9, providing a comprehensive overview of how different factors affected students' perceptions of learning in the pilot teaching activity.

The lack of significant differences in perceived learning between male and female students aligns with the study by Tanti et al. (2022), which suggests that gender may not play a critical role in students' perception of learning effectiveness, especially in modern educational settings that aim for gender neutrality.

The absence of significant differences between secondary and university students might be attributed to the universality of teaching methods across educational levels, as supported by research indicating similar perceptions of learning effectiveness regardless of educational stage.

The significant difference favoring single-session activities can be related to Wilson's (2022) findings, which indicate that concise, focused learning experiences might enhance immediate perception of learning, as they often require less cognitive load compared to extended projects.

The non-significant difference suggests a potential uniformity in the effectiveness of different technological tools in enhancing learning perception, which might be due to the increasing integration and familiarity of students with various digital platforms.

The lower perceived learning among students with high special educational needs could be due to the general teaching methods not being tailored to their specific learning requirements. This is consistent with the work of Hernández-Lara et al. (2019), who emphasized the importance of adapting teaching methods to individual needs.

The significantly higher perceived learning in students from low socio-economic backgrounds might be attributed to the novel nature of the pilot teaching activities, which could be more engaging or relevant than their usual educational experiences. This observation echoes the findings of Desai (2022), who noted the positive impact of active learning methods on students' learning outcomes, especially in diverse socio-economic settings.

9. How to Use Technology to Learn

This section presents the key findings of our research focused on understanding how students perceive learning to use technology. Our analysis, employing the Student's t-test, revealed insightful trends and patterns, which are essential for understanding the efficacy of technology in learning environments. For a detailed breakdown of the results across different variables, readers are referred to Table 10.

The absence of significant gender differences in technology learning aligns with research by Qazi et al. (2021), indicating a narrowing gender gap in technology use and skills. This suggests that gender may not play a critical role in learning technology in modern educational settings.

The difference between high school and university students’ perception can be attributed to the maturity and self-directed learning capabilities. University students might have more advanced cognitive skills, enabling them to better understand and utilize technology for learning.

The finding that single-session activities were more effective than project-based ones contradicts the general advocacy for project-based learning Agatep & Villalobos (2020). This could suggest that the intensity and focus of single sessions might be more conducive to immediate technology learning than extended projects.

The superiority of virtual reality over web-based technologies in enhancing learning is supported by Van Der Werf et al. (2023). VR's immersive experience may provide a more engaging and interactive learning environment, leading to higher perceived learning efficacy.

The findings that students without specific educational needs reported higher levels of learning in comparison might reflect the challenges in adapting technology for diverse learning needs. This is consistent with the challenges in technology integration for students with special needs noted by Rutkiene & Greenspon (2018).

The lack of significant differences based on socioeconomic levels could indicate an equitable access to and impact of the pilot teaching activity. This suggests that when given equal opportunities, students from varying backgrounds can benefit similarly from technological educational interventions.

10. Agile mindset

In this section, we present the results of a thorough analysis of these responses. Through a careful examination, we have identified key insights and discerned notable patterns within the students' feedback. This analysis sheds light on the students' perspectives regarding the extent to which the teaching activity influenced their mindset and adaptability.

Here is the quantitative analysis of the responses categorized as positive, negative, and neutral:

• Positive Responses: There are a total of 106 positive responses, indicating that a majority of the students had a positive perception of the teaching activity's impact on their agile mindset and adaptability. These responses often included expressions of improvement, increased motivation, and the development of agile skills.

• Neutral Responses: There are a total of 3 neutral responses. These responses did not strongly indicate a positive or negative sentiment. They were either brief or non-committal in assessing the impact of the teaching activity on the agile mindset.

• Negative Responses: There were no strongly negative responses among the provided answers. While there were a few responses that mentioned challenges or aspects that could be improved, none of them expressed a strongly negative sentiment.

It's important to note that the overwhelming majority of responses were positive, which suggests that the teaching activity had a generally positive impact on the students' perception of their agile mindset and adaptability.

Additionally, the students' responses revealed a range of perspectives. Many students expressed positive sentiments, highlighting the benefits they perceived from the activity. They mentioned improvements in their adaptability, time management, and communication skills. Some indicated that it helped them recognize and rectify their mistakes, fostering personal growth. Others appreciated the use of technology, although a few noted challenges related to technology use.

On the other hand, some students provided neutral responses, neither strongly endorsing nor criticizing the activity's impact. These responses often lacked specific details or were brief in nature, suggesting a level of ambivalence or uncertainty about the extent of the impact on their agile mindset.

Notably, there were no strongly negative responses among the provided answers. While a few students mentioned challenges, such as the need for a learning curve or concerns about the safety of the technology platform, these challenges did not overshadow the overall positive sentiment expressed by the majority of students.

Several students also acknowledged the potential of agile learning methodologies but emphasized the importance of time and experience in fully adapting to these new approaches. This recognition of a learning curve highlights the significance of ongoing support and training for both students and teachers in adopting agile methodologies effectively.

11. Additional information about these topics and variables

Many students shared their thoughts on the level of engagement and interest during the teaching activity. Some found it to be engaging and interesting, while others expressed less enthusiasm. For example, one student mentioned, "It was very nice," while another remarked, "It was good, but it was stressful."

A significant portion of the responses touched upon the use of VR glasses and digital tools. Some students found these technologies useful and expressed positive sentiments. One student said, "The VR was very cool." However, there were also concerns and challenges raised, as reflected in comments like, "There were way too many problems."

A few students highlighted collaboration with their peers and the importance of active learning. One student mentioned, "Collaborating with other members on brainstorming ideas," while another suggested, "I think it would be best to teach them in a more active way."

Some students found the question or topics unclear, which led to varying responses. One student admitted, "I don’t know if I was necessarily more motivated to learn compared to usual," and another expressed, "I'm not sure I understand this question clearly."

Several students reflected on changes in their motivation and alertness during the teaching activity. Some mentioned feeling more motivated and alert, while others had mixed feelings. One student stated, "I learned to think about what I like to do," while another said, "I didn't find these themes so interesting."

A few responses contained specific feedback related to individual subjects or themes. For example, one student mentioned, "Space design is important," while another stated, "I teach 2 different topics and it was difficult to answer the questions thinking of the 2 topics at the same time."

Overall, there was a range of satisfaction levels expressed by students. Some were satisfied with the teaching activity, while others were more neutral or non-committal. One student simply said, "it was fun," while another expressed, "I think I can't tell much that it was just one lesson."

12. Mentioned Highlights

The use of virtual reality (VR) technology generated mixed feedback. While some students appreciated the engagement and creativity facilitated by VR, others had reservations. A student noted, "The VR glasses ... It did not work." However, another mentioned, "It was somehow soothing and stimulating at the same time." The use of VR for self-expression through avatars was also highlighted, with a student stating, "For some reason expressing my inner self through the avatar gave me more courage to be myself, speak out, and be more active."

Students valued the opportunity to work in groups and collaborate with peers. They appreciated the support and teamwork that emerged during the activities. One student noted, "Teamwork and others helping each other." The freedom to choose group members was also seen as a positive aspect, as expressed by a student: "You could choose who you worked with."

Many students had positive remarks about the teaching methods employed during the activity. They found the class dynamic and engaging. One student expressed, "It has been very dynamic and undoubtedly more fun than a theoretical class." Students also appreciated the videos and explanations provided by the teacher, which enhanced their learning experience.

The integration of new technologies into education received positive feedback. Students appreciated the use of technology and its impact on their engagement and energy levels. A student mentioned, "Use of new technologies in teaching." The use of VR glasses and digital media within the virtual world was seen as an innovative approach.

Some students reflected on personal growth, self-awareness, and self-expression during the activity. They noted that the experience allowed them to express themselves in ways they might not have in a traditional classroom setting. A student shared, "I like the way you can express yourself with your avatar the way you wouldn’t have the courage to express yourself in real life."

13. Aspects for improvement mentioned

A recurring theme among the students' feedback was the issue of time constraints. Some students felt that the classes could have been longer or that they needed more time for certain activities. One student stated, "We had too little time for making exercises," highlighting the perceived lack of time for practical tasks within the teaching activity.

Technical challenges were a common concern. Students mentioned issues related to VR glasses, internet connectivity, and the use of QR codes. One student noted, "The Internet was slow, and scanning QR codes took a long time," reflecting the frustration caused by technical limitations.

Some students pointed out the need for better communication. They mentioned that instructions or guidance could have been clearer. One student suggested, "Better communication is essential," emphasizing the importance of effective communication during the activity.

A few students expressed a desire for more engaging and motivating classes. This suggests that they were seeking a more dynamic and stimulating learning experience. One student commented, "The classes could be more motivating," indicating a desire for increased engagement.

Several students suggested that prior training or familiarization with the technology, especially VR, would be beneficial. One student mentioned, "A pre-session to familiarize with the technology is needed," highlighting the importance of preparatory training.

Technical support emerged as an important aspect. Students mentioned the need for assistance with VR technology and resolving technical issues. One student said, "Technical support for VR is necessary," emphasizing the need for timely assistance.

A few students raised concerns about the distribution of groups, suggesting that group composition could be improved for a more balanced experience. One student remarked, "Group distribution should be fair," indicating a desire for equitable groupings.

Some students found the questionnaire too long and suggested that it could be shorter for a more efficient experience. This feedback underscores the importance of survey design. One student stated, "The questionnaire was too lengthy," highlighting the need for concise surveys.

Students mentioned challenges related to social interaction within the virtual environment, such as difficulty reading facial expressions and feeling distant from others. One student shared, "Social interaction in the virtual space was challenging," revealing the complexities of virtual social dynamics.

A few students commented on issues related to the organization of the virtual classroom. This feedback may indicate the need for better structuring of the virtual learning environment. One student stated, "Classroom organization could be improved," pointing to organizational challenges.

Some students mentioned distractions within the virtual space, such as excessive gamification and the potential for participants to engage in unrelated activities. One student noted, "Excessive gamification can be distracting," highlighting the need for a balanced approach.

14. Additional comments

Some students mentioned experiencing technical difficulties or issues while participating in the teaching activity. This theme reflects potential challenges associated with the use of technology in education. One student expressed frustration, saying, "I don't see any real benefit for using this tool in an academic environment, especially when compared to traditional remote meeting tools."

Several students provided responses with mixed sentiments. They acknowledged both positive and negative aspects of the teaching activity. For example, a student mentioned, "It is fun to learn in VR," indicating a positive aspect, but also acknowledged, "I found it very overwhelming to concentrate on the lesson in the interactive 3D-environment," highlighting a drawback.

A minority of students expressed gratitude and positivity in their responses. They appreciated the effort put into the teaching activity. One student remarked, "Thank you for this fascinating lesson," while another said, "It was a nice lesson."

Some students shared their thoughts on the potential of virtual reality (VR) in education. They discussed the importance of clear pedagogical objectives and the potential for VR in specific contexts. One student commented, "For usages, I consider the potential to be something. However, it is difficult for me to find utility for the majority of teachers." Another student mentioned, "I think it will be part of the future of hybrid learning."

A few students mentioned the potential utility of VR, particularly in situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlighted how VR could facilitate student interaction and a sense of belonging in remote or socially distant learning environments.

A couple of students mentioned experiencing physical discomfort while using VR. This includes feelings of sickness or discomfort related to the immersive VR experience. One student noted, "I get physically sick while using VR."