Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:16:50 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
16 SES 15 A
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper Beyond Passive Use - Cognitive Engagement and Technology Use in Finnish Secondary Classrooms 1: Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; 2: Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; 3: Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Presenting Author:The aim of this study is to investigate observed cognitive engagement in three Finnish secondary schools and the purposes of technology use within the observed lessons (N = 427). Previous research has often focused on the frequency rather than the purposes of technology use (Antonietti et al., 2023), and large-scale observational studies of authentic technology‑integrated learning situations remain scarce. Such studies can inform policy and guide teachers’ professional development in technology‑integrated instruction. In addition, this study aims to further develop the theoretical framework of cognitive engagement (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Vosniadou et al., 2023) by examining observed off-task behaviors. Here, cognitive engagement is defined as students’ active mental involvement in learning through the meaningful analysis and engagement with information rather than passive reception (Chi & Wylie, 2014). The level of cognitive engagement is crucial for high-quality learning outcomes (Vosniadou et al., 2023, 2024). However, the role of technology in shaping cognitive engagement is complex and controversial. Research indicates that technology-mediated learning environments can support basic and higher-order skills and student motivation (Hristov et al., 2025). Nevertheless, technology alone does not guarantee improved outcomes. An analysis of Finnish PISA 2022 data revealed no direct correlation between ICT usage for learning and achievement; conversely, high leisure ICT usage was linked to lower performance (Hristov et al., 2025). More broadly, the influence of technology on learning appears to be indirect (Li & Zhu, 2023), depending on how and what purposes technology is used for (Antonietti et al., 2023). Therefore, integrating technology calls for thoughtful reflection on the underlying pedagogy. When technology is integrated into meaningful pedagogical practices, it can support students’ domain-specific learning, motivation, and engagement (Antonietti et al., 2023; Hristov et al., 2025). According to ICILS 2023 study, Finnish youth use digital tools for learning less often than the international average, especially compared to other Nordic countries (Fagerlund et al., 2024). Teachers report relying mainly on basic applications such as word processing, presentations, and information searches. Similarly, earlier research found that the use of technology in lower secondary schools is limited to basic tasks such as searching, editing, and saving information (Oinas et al., 2023). Students are rarely given an active role in lessons that incorporate digital technology. This study applies the ICAP framework for analyzing pedagogical practices and cognitive engagement from observed lessons. The ICAP focuses on students’ cognitive engagement (Chi & Wylie, 2014) and is supported by empirical evidence (Vosniadou et al., 2024). It distinguishes four qualitatively distinct modes—Passive (P), Active (A), Constructive (C), and Interactive (I)—each linked to different learning processes and outcomes. These modes are identified through observable activities and underlying learning processes. Learning improves progressively across the modes: Active engagement supports better retention than Passive engagement; Constructive engagement promotes deeper learning by generating new ideas; and Interactive engagement is most effective because learners co-construct knowledge through dialogue and collaboration (I > C > A > P, the so-called ICAP-hypothesis). Furthermore, the study applies the ICAP Technology Scale (ICAP-TS) (Antonietti et al., 2023) to study the purposes of technology use. Previous studies have shown that student activities involving digital technologies can be organized using the ICAP framework, and that technologies designed to encourage specific cognitive processes can positively impact learning (Antonietti et al., 2023; Stegmann, 2020). To provide an overview of cognitive engagement and the purpose of technology use in the observed lessons, as well as to offer implications for educational experts, we posed the following research questions: RQ1. Which forms of cognitive engagement characterize the pedagogical practices observed in secondary schools? RQ2. How does the use of technology support different levels of cognitive engagement in the classroom? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study was conducted in the spring of 2025 in a Finnish city, with three relatively large schools participating in the research. This study is part of a larger project examining students’ learning, motivation and engagement in relation to their technology use. The target group consisted of seventh-grade students in lower secondary school, aged 13 or 14. In each school, lessons were intensively observed during a two-week research period. The lesson observations were conducted by trained research assistants and researchers using a specially developed observation protocol. For this study, we drew on information regarding the lesson’s subject and theme, open‑ended descriptions of classroom events captured in 15‑minute segments (beginning, middle, end), and questions related to technology use. Each lesson was 45 minutes long, and there was a total of 427 lessons. At the time this proposal was written, 186 lessons were analyzed, and the analysis is ongoing. All data will be analyzed for the presentation. The observation data was analyzed using the ICAP framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Vosniadou et al., 2023; 2024), coding all the 15-min segments of the lessons. While analyzing the data, we observed numerous instances in which students did not engage in the passive mode as defined (e.g., “watching a video, or listening to an online lecture”) but instead displayed a passive off‑task mode (e.g., most students “chatting with friends; some resting or just hanging around doing nothing”). By introducing this new category, we aim to further refine the theoretical framework for classroom observation purposes. Following the ICAP-TS framework (Antonietti et al., 2023), the purposes of technology use were analyzed, such as whether technology was used to “actively repeat and practice the knowledge imparted” or to “develop new knowledge together with others.” For this proposal, 24 technology-using lessons were analyzed. A reliability check was conducted by two independent coders who coded approximately 10% of the data. Cohen’s kappa values for the categories ranged from .54 to .86, indicating fair to good agreement (De Wever et al., 2010; Neuendorf, 2002). After this check, the coders reached full (100%) agreement, after which one coder continued with the remaining coding. The coder marked unclear parts, which were then discussed with two other researchers to reach consensus. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The ICAP codes were distributed as follows: 5.7% Passive off-task, 22.0% Passive, 27.1% Active, 6.5% Active/Collaborative, 21.3% Constructive, and 17.4% Interactive. In other words, the students spent 61.3% of their time on the four lower levels, and 38.7% on the Constructive/Interactive levels. This indicates a stronger focus on Constructive/Interactive modes than was found in a previous study conducted in Australia (Vosniadou et al., 2023). However, that study used a minute-by-minute analysis, whereas we analyzed a larger dataset using 15-minute segments. The initial analysis of students’ technology use purposes (24 lessons) showed the following distribution: 7.9% were categorized as Passive (e.g., “inform about learning objectives and content”); 28.9% as Active (“students actively repeat and practice the knowledge imparted”); 28.9% as Constructive (e.g., “develop individual solutions for complex problems”); and 34.2% as Interactive (e.g., “develop new knowledge together with others”). Active uses typically involved students practicing knowledge with tools like Kahoot! or Quizlet, while Interactive uses centered on collaboration to develop new knowledge through group work, to produce texts (e.g., summaries, news items), or to conduct information searches. The results highlight the need to consider technology use beyond online quizzes, which was the main use. At the same time, the findings show relatively high proportions of Constructive/Interactive technology use. Previous research has found such use very difficult to achieve (Antonietti et al., 2023; Oinas et al., 2023). Finally, this study also introduced passive off-task as a new category for the ICAP framework, opening new venues for observing the students’ cognitive engagement. References Antonietti, C., Schmitz, M. L., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Development and validation of the ICAP Technology Scale to measure how teachers integrate technology into learning activities. Computers & Education, 192, 104648. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. Fagerlund, J., Leino, K., Niilo-Rämä, M., Puhakka, E., & Markkanen, I. (2024). Kohti digiosaamisen strategista kehittämistä: Kansainvälinen monilukutaidon ja ohjelmoinnillisen ajattelun tutkimus (ICILS 2023) [Toward the strategic development of digital competence: The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS 2023)]. Tutkimuksia, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, 40. Hristov, M., Yada, T., Fagerlund, J., Näykki, P., & Häkkinen, P. (2025). Understanding the Relationships Among ICT Use, Self-Efficacy, and Achievement in PISA 2022: A Multigroup Analysis Featuring Gender and Immigrant Status. Computers & Education, 105539. Li, S. C., & Zhu, J. (2023). Cognitive-motivational engagement in ICT mediates the effect of ICT use on academic achievements: Evidence from 52 countries. Computers & Education, 204, 104871. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications. Oinas, S., Vainikainen, M.-P., Asikainen, M., Gustavson, N., Halinen, J., Hienonen, N., Kiili, C., Kilpi, N., Koivuhovi, S., Kortesoja, L., Kupiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Mergianian, C., Merikanto, I., Mäkihonko, M., Nazeri, F., Nyman, L., Polso, K.-M., Schöning, O., … Hotulainen, R. (2023). The impact of digitalisation on learning situations, learning and learning outcomes in lower secondary schools: Initial results and recommendations of a national research project. Tampere University & University of Helsinki. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-2782-8 Stegmann, K. (2020). Effekte digitalen Lernens auf den Wissens- und Kompetenzenerwerb in der Schule: Eine Integration metaanalytischer Befunde [Effects of digital learning for knowledge acquisition and competence development in school: An integration of meta-analytic evidence]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66(2), 174–190. Vosniadou, S., Bodner, E., Stephenson, H., Jeffries, D., Lawson, M. J., Darmawan, I. N., ... & Dignath, C. (2024). The promotion of self-regulated learning in the classroom: a theoretical framework and an observation study. Metacognition and Learning, 19(1), 381-419. Vosniadou, S., Lawson, M. J., Bodner, E., Stephenson, H., Jeffries, D., & Darmawan, I. G. N. (2023). Using an extended ICAP-based coding guide as a framework for the analysis of classroom observations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, 104133. 16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper Embedding Immersive Virtual Reality (I-VR) into the Primary School Classroom Mälardalen University, Sweden Presenting Author:Recent advances in XR technologies, most notably Immersive virtual Reality (I-VR) have opened potentials for learning in new experientially grounded ways (Dede, 2009). I-VR provides significant educational potential, offering a technology that offers subject-relevant immersive experiences and ways for pupils to engage in places that are too distant, too dangerous, or otherwise inaccessible, such as going to a historical setting, visiting another continent, or even space. A recent meta-analysis shows mid- to high effects on student outcomes (Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022). Other experimental studies in the primary-school age have shown significant outcomes in for example science (Cao et al., 2024) and writing (Üstünel & Kutluca Canbulat, 2025). Meanwhile, there is contradictory evidence: a recent RCT found no advantage of I-VR over a control group receiving traditional classroom teaching (Wiafe et al., 2025). However, while offering potential to transform and expand the notions of primary classroom learning (see Xie & Zhang, 2024), in the current research, few studies examine real-world classroom applications of VR (Zhong et al., 2025). Furthermore, it is notable that most interventional studies have examined interventions lasting less than two hours (Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022). Thus, there is a need to examine cases of embedded and sustained VR use in primary school classrooms. The current study employs short-term ethnographic inquiry to examine classroom practices in schools with developed I-VR practices. The study follows two classrooms in a small town in Sweden, with teachers who have several years experience working with VR. One of the groups is a fourth-grade classroom of 27 children. The other group is a first-grade classroom of 22 children. Theoretical and methodological approach The study uses Activity theory, also known as Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), a framework for understanding learning and organizational change. At the core of the theory is the Vygotskyan (1978) notion of learning and development, where culture and the role of cultural mediation in this process are key. In sociocultural theory, the relation between the subject and the object of learning is culturally extended through mediating cultural tools, which can be physical or symbolic (Cole, 1996). The traditional illustration of mediation, where culture is placed between subject and object, was extended by Engeström (1987) into a triangular formation that also included rules, community, and the division of labour, forming an ’activity system’. In activity systems, it is fundamental that tensions within the system also bring about change and opportunities for learning. learning is intrinsically tied to the cultural setting, and it shows how learning with new tools often requires a significant transformation of an activity system (cf. Engeström & Sannino, 2010). CHAT has been widely used to understand learning with new technologies, showing how technologies are part of changing people’s ways of acting within a cultural setting (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006). A major finding in education has been that technologies infuse new forms of tension into activity systems and also enable transformative learning opportunities (Barab et al., 2002). This study employs CHAT as a theoretical and analytical lens to examine the tensions VR inclusion creates in classrooms and how VR transforms traditional classroom learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a short-term ethnographic approach to studying the classroom with the experiences of VR teachers. Inspired by the notion of a ’focused ethnography’ (Knoblauch, 2005), the goal is to generate ethnographic ’thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1973) within a relatively short period, using video recordings and rich multimodal data sources to enable intensive yet detailed data collection. The collected material for this study includes classroom observations, teacher focus group interviews, child focus group interviews, ethnographic notes, including preliminary codes and memoing (Emerson et al., 2011), and informal talks. Ethnographic classroom observations were conducted over five weeks, with five school visits to the classrooms and their work. Video ethnography has been used to capture lessons and VR activities in the classrooms. A total of 6,5 hours of classroom interaction with VR has been captured. Most recordings have used a dual-camera setup, with one stationary camera directed at VR activities and/or mirroring in-headset video, and one GoPro camera with a wider lens to capture VR embedded in the surrounding classroom activity. Seven group interviews with around 3 children per group (total n children = 20) have been conducted at the end of observational periods. A semi-structured interview format was used, containing questions about how children perceive and feel about VR in the classroom, and how it may differ from other classroom activities and learning. Analysis Initial analyses of ethnographic observations and of preliminary data identified four main types of activities in the pedagogical work: VR as part of classroom work, Collaborative peer activities with VR, Individual experiences with VR, and Extended classroom activities. Interview data have been used to triangulate findings and to enrich the thick descriptions, including several of the participants’ perspectives (where child interviews are instrumental). The interviews have been inductively and qualitatively coded (Miles et al., 2020) to find the emergent patterns in how teachers explained activities and how children experienced work and learning with VR in the classroom. After the inductive phases developing thick descriptions of the activities related to VR, Activity systems analysis (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010), has been used to examine how classrooms are structured according to the components of Engeström’s (1987) model. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings VR as part of classroom work: In the activity type, I-VR experiences are used as a complement to traditional schoolwork. The teachers’ design allocated a part of the classroom for a VR space. After a traditional lesson opening, children start with workbooks and/or group work assignments in the subject. During this work, children will take turns working with a relevant VR experience. Collaborative peer activities with VR: VR in the classroom were also shown to foster collaborative engagement among children through I-VR activities. This classroom design used a computer placed beside the VR space to mirror the VR experience, allowing another child to observe it alongside the VR user and promoting peer interaction and apprenticeship learning setups. Individual experiences with VR: The basis of the third identified I-VR experience is that one user immerses themselves in a prepared experience. In the current case, the provider of VR experiences has developed a platform designed for teachers and children to select from school-appropriate applications. Extended classroom activities: VR enables school-relevant tech to be experienced by children beyond the classroom. In the project, children reported feeling as though they were ’leaving the classroom and going to recess’ when putting on the VR headset. The VR provider has created a platform with different “nodes” of libraries, museums, and science centers that can use it, potentially extending children's learning experiences beyond the traditional school day. Results from the activity system analysis (Engeström, 1987; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) reveal considerable tensions with traditional classroom pedagogies. Moving from standard classroom setups to I-VR means relinquishing classroom control for greater child agency. In extension, this shifts the object of learning from the standard declarative forms of knowledge displays, such as verbal and written answers, to experiential knowledge taking an increased precedence. References Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using Activity Theory to Understand the Systemic Tensions Characterizing a Technology-Rich Introductory Astronomy Course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107. Cao, S., Chu, J., Zhang, Z., & Liu, L. (2024). The effectiveness of VR environment on primary and secondary school students’ learning performance in science courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 7321–7337. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Dede C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. & Shaw, L.L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. (2.ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Diss. Helsinki : Univ.. Helsinki. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Geertz, C. (2017). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. (Third edition.) New York: Basic Books. Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B.A. (2006). Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press. Knoblauch, H. (2005) Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition). SAGE. Üstünel, R., & Kutluca Canbulat, A. N. (2025). The effect of virtual reality-enhanced prewriting activities on primary school students’ writing motivation and writing disposition. Education and Information Technologies. Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P. Wiafe, I., Ekpezu, A. O., Gyamera, G. O., Winful, F. B. P., Atsakpo, E. D., Nutropkor, C., & Gulliver, S. (2025). Comparative evaluation of learning technologies using a randomized controlled trial: Virtual reality, augmented reality, online video platforms, and traditional classroom learning. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 11775–11795. Xie, Y., & Zhang, X. (2024). Research on the design and implementation of primary school STEM project based on VR coursewares. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(3), 939–955. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis Methods. Springer. Zhong, Y., Li, C., Jiang, J., Fryer, L. K., & Shum, A. (2025). A Review of Reviews on Virtual Reality in Educational Context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331251396405. 16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper Conceptual Understanding in Bioscience through Simulation-Based Learning: Conceptual, Scaffolded, and Embodied Learning in a CAVE 1: Østfold University College; 2: University of Massachusetts Amherst Presenting Author:The objective and research questions This study contributes new insights into how students' collaborative exploration of bioscience concepts within a CAVE can enhance their conceptual understanding. By investigating how novice health profession students learn bioscience within this environment, this research aims to contribute to increase the completion rates of educational programs in this field. The objective is to examine the interactional learning processes of simulation-based learning in a CAVE following students’ conceptual understanding of core concepts in bioscience. We investigate this by addressing the dual research question: What are the defining characteristics of health profession students' understanding of specific bioscience concepts, and how do interactional, scaffolded, and embodied learning in a CAVE facilitate this understanding? The study employs detailed video-based interaction analysis to compare high- and low-achieving groups focusing on how the students in each of these groups develop a conceptual understanding of bioscience concepts when interacting within the CAVE.
General background description The fact that health profession students find it challenging to learn scientific concepts is not at all new. Studies have consistently shown that subjects like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology are perceived as difficult by students both nationally and internationally (Jensen, 2018; McVicar, 2015). Students find it difficult to integrate biological science theory into practice, but well-designed simulation-based learning can help bridge this gap (Grønlien et al., 2025). In line with most health profession study programs, our university college has worked systematically to design programs that in diverse ways more effectively foster the students’ understanding of scientific concepts. The latest intervention in our institution is a scenario-based simulation in a CAVE designed to offer opportunities to simulate scientific concepts in physiology. With projections on three walls, interactive components, and the ability to incorporate scents, a whole new dimension is introduced. The design of simulation-based learning in the CAVE is based on a well-tested clinical bioscientific scenario for health profession students and is guided by the design recommendations described by DeBack (2021). The use of CAVEs is an expanding learning strategy in Norway. Several other educational institutions are now establishing similar spaces.
Theoretical framework This study is grounded in a sociocultural perspective on conceptual understanding that emphasizes social interaction and tool mediation (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Within this perspective, scientific understanding is viewed as a specialized form of language associated with scientific communities and developed over decades. Bioscience concepts are not an exception, and it is therefore unsurprising that developing an understanding of such concepts is a complex and non-trivial process. Wood et al. (1976) introduce the concept of scaffolding to describe support enabling task completion. Tutors guide learners through elements beyond their current capability, enhancing competence (Arnseth & Krange, 2016; van der Pol et al., 2010). In simulation-based learning, scaffolding involves inquiry, gathering, processing, and application phases, emphasizing debriefing's role (Clapper, 2015; Bondie et al, 2023; Wang et al, 2025). Embodied learning, particularly in simulation-based contexts, promotes physical engagement in educational activities. It unites reasoning with sensorimotor interactions (Glenberg, 2010), indicating movement enhanced learning and that structured activities boost outcomes (Goldin-Meadow, Cook & Mitchell, 2009). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methods This study was conducted at a CAVE at our university of applied sciences and involving health profession students enrolled in bachelor's programs for nursing, social education, and biomedical science. All students attended a similar first-semester physiology course. In total, 307 students participated: 213 from nursing, 65 from social education, and 29 from biomedical laboratory science. The students were divided into groups of 5-8 participants, each consisting exclusively of members from the same professional program. In total, there were 32 nursing student groups, 16 social educator student groups, and 6 biomedical laboratory scientist student groups, distributed over 7 days. The paper draws on two data sources: an individual pre- and posttest survey and video recordings of students’ interactions during problem solving in the CAVE. The pre-and posttest was designed to assess students’ knowledge levels before and after completing the scenario-based simulation in the CAVE. In this paper, these test data are only used to support qualified selection of high- and low-achieving groups that can serve as illustrative cases for diverse forms of interactional achievement. For this purpose, we conduct descriptive statistics of pre- and post-tests scores at the group level for all cohorts. The statistical analyses are performed using IBM SPSS software version 31.0.1.0. For the video material, we randomly selected three out of the seven simulation days to record the students’ learning trajectories within the CAVE, ensuring the representation of all three study programs. After excluding control groups and groups that, for unforeseen reasons, ended up with fewer than five students during the simulation, the final video data set comprised nine groups and approximately five hours of video recordings. Detailed, moment-to-moment transcriptions of two high-achieving and two low-achieving groups constitute the basis for interaction analysis (Jordan and Henderson, 1995), aiming at investigating their conceptual understanding in the CAVE, with particular attention to interactional achievement, scaffolding processes, and embodied learning. These analyses will be completed during this spring. The study complies with institutional guidelines and was reviewed by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Sikt), reference number 589489. Under Norwegian law, no additional formal approvals are required. Participation was voluntary, and students received written information outlining the study's aims and purposes. They were informed that they could discontinue participation and withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected outcomes This study examines the health profession novice students' conceptual understanding of bioscience and utilizing pre-and posttest statistics in a combination with interaction analyses to better understand how conceptual understanding occurs during simulation-based training in a CAVE. By selecting groups that exhibit varying knowledge levels, we aim to understand the process of how conceptual understanding during simulation-based simulation in the CAVE differs across groups. All results and analysis will be completed ahead of the conference. The research will contribute new insights into the field of simulation-based learning in CAVEs and the topic of conceptual understanding in bioscience grounded in rich quantitative and qualitative set of data and a theoretical perspective focusing on conceptual learning, scaffolding and embodied learning. References References Arnseth, H. C. & Krange, I. (2016). What happens when you push the button? Analyzing the functional dynamics of concept development in computer supported science inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 479-50. de Back, T. T., Tinga, A. M., & Louwerse, M. M. (2023) Learning in immersed collaborative virtual environments: design and implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 31:8, 5364-5382, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.2006238 Bondie, R., Zushko, A., Wiseman, E. Dede, C., & Rich, D. (2023). Can differentiated and personalized mixed reality simulations transform teacher learning? Technology Mind Behavior doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000098 Clapper, T. C. (2015). Cooperative-based learning and the zone of proximal development. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 148-158. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive science, 1(4), 586-596. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological science, 20(3), 267-272. Grønlien, H. K., Wevling, A., Arntsen, M. B., & Haug, E. (2025). Bridging Bioscience to Practice: The Significance of Clinical Simulation Training for Novice Nursing Students. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 927-941. Jensen, K. T., Knutstad, U. & Fawcett, T. N. (2018). The challenge of the biosciences in nurse education: A literature review. Journal of clinical nursing, 27(9-10), 1793-1802. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14358 Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39-103.Lindgren, 2016 McVicar, A., Andrew, S. & Kemble, R. (2015). The ‘bioscience problem’ for nursing students: An integrative review of published evaluations of Year 1 bioscience, and proposed directions for curriculum development. Nurse Education Today, 35(3), 500-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.11.003 van der Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press. Wang, M., Dede, C., Grotzer, T.A. & Chen, J. (2025). Understanding and managing the complexities in situated learning in immersive virtual environments. Education Tech Research Dev (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10519-5 Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. | ||