Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This exploratory study evaluates the usability of five Virtual Reality (VR) laboratories integrated into undergraduate biomedical engineering education, through a socio-technical lens. While most existing usability evaluations emphasize technical functionality, this study investigates how learners’ usability perceptions relate to cognitive, affective, and contextual learning experiences. Specifically, we investigate two primary research questions: (1) What aspects of usability emerged from learners’ experiences with the VR laboratories, and how did these shape their overall perceptions of the tools? and (2) In what ways did learners perceive the usability of the VR laboratories as influencing their cognitive engagement, affective responses, and contextual understanding? By adopting a holistic perspective, the study aims to inform the design of VR learning environments that promote student engagement and effectiveness.</p> Methods <p>A mixed-method design was used to evaluate five VR laboratories embedded within a biomedical engineering curriculum. Quantitative data were collected using the System Usability Scale (SUS), while open-ended survey responses provided qualitative insight into the factors influencing learners’ usability ratings. A hybrid analytical approach was employed to interpret qualitative responses, with themes categorized according to cognitive, affective, and contextual dimensions of learner experience.</p> Results <p>SUS scores indicated marginal usability for most of the VR laboratories, with mean ratings falling within the C and D grade ranges. Qualitative findings revealed three interrelated themes shaping learners’ usability perceptions: (1) laboratory design and interface, (2) simulation pace and system performance, and (3) instructional guidance and support. Students reported that clear visuals, intuitive navigation, and embedded support materials enhanced focus and satisfaction, whereas software glitches, unclear instructions, or disorganized content negatively impacted learning. Contextual factors such as prior VR experience and access to infrastructure further shaped engagement.</p> Conclusions <p>This study highlights the importance of evaluating VR laboratories not only for technical reliability but also for their cognitive, affective, and contextual impacts on learners. Findings underscore the need for iterative, user-centered design practices in biomedical engineering education. A socio-technical approach to usability evaluation can guide educators and developers in creating VR learning environments that are accessible, pedagogically coherent, and responsive to the diverse needs of engineering students.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Usability Evaluation of Virtual Reality Laboratories in Biomedical Engineering Education

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月3日

查看全文
  • Deborah Moyaki,
  • Nathaniel Hunsu,
  • Dominik May,
  • Animesh Paul,
  • Pravalika Irukulla,
  • Cheryl Gomillion

摘要

Purpose

This exploratory study evaluates the usability of five Virtual Reality (VR) laboratories integrated into undergraduate biomedical engineering education, through a socio-technical lens. While most existing usability evaluations emphasize technical functionality, this study investigates how learners’ usability perceptions relate to cognitive, affective, and contextual learning experiences. Specifically, we investigate two primary research questions: (1) What aspects of usability emerged from learners’ experiences with the VR laboratories, and how did these shape their overall perceptions of the tools? and (2) In what ways did learners perceive the usability of the VR laboratories as influencing their cognitive engagement, affective responses, and contextual understanding? By adopting a holistic perspective, the study aims to inform the design of VR learning environments that promote student engagement and effectiveness.

Methods

A mixed-method design was used to evaluate five VR laboratories embedded within a biomedical engineering curriculum. Quantitative data were collected using the System Usability Scale (SUS), while open-ended survey responses provided qualitative insight into the factors influencing learners’ usability ratings. A hybrid analytical approach was employed to interpret qualitative responses, with themes categorized according to cognitive, affective, and contextual dimensions of learner experience.

Results

SUS scores indicated marginal usability for most of the VR laboratories, with mean ratings falling within the C and D grade ranges. Qualitative findings revealed three interrelated themes shaping learners’ usability perceptions: (1) laboratory design and interface, (2) simulation pace and system performance, and (3) instructional guidance and support. Students reported that clear visuals, intuitive navigation, and embedded support materials enhanced focus and satisfaction, whereas software glitches, unclear instructions, or disorganized content negatively impacted learning. Contextual factors such as prior VR experience and access to infrastructure further shaped engagement.

Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of evaluating VR laboratories not only for technical reliability but also for their cognitive, affective, and contextual impacts on learners. Findings underscore the need for iterative, user-centered design practices in biomedical engineering education. A socio-technical approach to usability evaluation can guide educators and developers in creating VR learning environments that are accessible, pedagogically coherent, and responsive to the diverse needs of engineering students.