Integrating XR Technology in Education: A Study on Enhancing Student Satisfaction through Sentiment Analysis

Advancements in educational technology have brought significant transformations, particularly in online learning. The integration of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) into live classroom teaching represents a promising approach to enhancing student satisfaction. However, many educators continue to rely on traditional teaching methods, often resulting in monotonous and less interactive learning environments. This study aims to explore how the incorporation of XR technology in online learning can improve student satisfaction through sentiment analysis. The key outcome of this research is the development of an interactive XR-based learning platform that combines VR, AR, and MR technologies within live teaching practices. This platform is designed to enhance students’ learning experiences and satisfaction in online environments. Employing a quantitative approach, the study analyzed student feedback using sentiment analysis software. Findings indicate that XR technology fosters greater engagement, interest, and comprehension among students, leading to higher levels of satisfaction. Furthermore, the results highlight the necessity for educators to be equipped with adequate knowledge and skills to effectively implement digital teaching strategies. The study recommends that educational policymakers and institutional leaders provide appropriate training and support to enable teachers to integrate XR technologies more effectively into their pedagogical practices.

XR Technology, Online education, Student satisfaction

1. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alalwan, N., Al-Rahmi, W., Alfarraj, O., Alzahrani, A., Yahaya, N., & Al-Rahmi, A. (2020). Integrated three theories to develop a model of factors affecting students’ academic performance in higher education. IEEE Access, 8, 116321–116336. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anderson, T. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for use of technology in education. Journal of Learning for Development, 6(1), 5–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bates, T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00282-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bozkurt, A., Sharma, R. C., & Kerres, M. (2021). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cambria, E., Schuller, B., Xia, Y., & Havasi, C. (2017). New avenues in opinion mining and sentiment analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(2), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.30 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Feldman, R. (2013). Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/2436256.2436274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics for study success: Reflections on current empirical findings. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00138-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2018). Immersive VR and education: Embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2014). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K–12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Shum, S. B., Ferguson, R., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2018). Human-centred learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2018.53.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marin, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2019). Digital game-based learning of information literacy: Effects of gameplay modes on university students’ learning performance, motivation and satisfaction. Computers & Education, 136, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet