Does immersion favor interaction? A within-subjects evaluation of desktop and HMD-based Virtual Reality interaction in an educational cartography application

Leticia Zanellatto de Oliveira; Matheus Prokopowiski dos Santos; Gustavo Camargo Domingues; Thaynara Nascimento de Jesus; Claudio Roberto Marquetto Mauricio; Ericson Hideki Hayakawa; João Marcelo Teixeira; Fatima L. S. Nunes; Fabiana Frata Furlan Peres

doi:10.5753/jbcs.2026.8243

Authors

Leticia Zanellatto de Oliveira Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná-Unioeste https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2668-1922
Matheus Prokopowiski dos Santos Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná-Unioeste https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5010-2880
Gustavo Camargo Domingues Universidade Federal de Pernambuco https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5510-2605
Thaynara Nascimento de Jesus Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná-Unioeste https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2672-4173
Claudio Roberto Marquetto Mauricio Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná-Unioeste https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2783-3988
Ericson Hideki Hayakawa Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1342-1659
João Marcelo Teixeira Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7180-512X
Fatima L. S. Nunes Universidade de São Paulo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0040-0752
Fabiana Frata Furlan Peres Universidade de São Paulo, Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3937-3432

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5753/jbcs.2026.8243

Keywords:

Virtual Reality, Cartography Education, Human–Computer Interaction, User Experience

Abstract

Immersive Virtual Reality has been increasingly integrated into educational contexts due to its potential for spatial engagement. However, the trade-offs between immersion and interaction performance remain a subject of debate. This paper evaluates this relationship using GeoConnect, an educational cartography application designed to support Brazilian cartography learning through interactive map-assembly tasks. We conducted a within-subjects study with 36 students aged 12–13 years to compare two functionally equivalent 3D versions of GeoConnect, evaluated as a conventional Desktop condition and an HMD-based condition. The evaluation adopts a mixed subjective–objective approach, combining standardized instruments, SUS, UEQ, and SSQ, with telemetry-based metrics, including completion time, errors, precision, and a hesitation index. Results indicate that both conditions achieved high perceived usability, with mean SUS scores of 78.19 for the Desktop condition and 79.72 for the HMD-based condition. The HMD-based condition was preferred by 88.89% of participants, suggesting a strong preference for the immersive condition. However, cybersickness was not negligible: the HMD-based condition produced a mean SSQ total score of 32.41, a median of 22.44, and the highest subscale score in Disorientation; the most frequent symptoms were fullness of head, eyestrain, and dizziness with eyes open. Objective telemetry suggested that immersive interaction increased completion time by 82.97 seconds on average, although this difference did not survive Holm–Bonferroni correction across telemetry metrics. Presentation order also influenced completion time: the HMD time cost was concentrated among participants who used the HMD-based condition first, whereas participants who used Desktop first completed the later HMD-based condition with nearly equivalent times. These findings indicate descriptive pragmatic–hedonic tendencies moderated by learning and carryover effects. We conclude that Desktop and HMD-based conditions should be treated as complementary tools in geography education rather than mutually exclusive alternatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bimberg, P., Weissker, T., and Kulik, A. (2020). On the usage of the simulator sickness questionnaire for virtual reality research. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), pages 464-467. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/VRW50115.2020.00098.

Brooke, J. et al. (1996). Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4-7. [link].

Carbonell-Carrera, C. and Saorin, J. L. (2017). Virtual learning environments to enhance spatial orientation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3):709-719. DOI: 10.12973/ejmste/79171.

Chen, M.-X., Hu, H., Yao, R., Qiu, L., and Li, D. (2024). A survey on the design of virtual reality interaction interfaces. Sensors, 24(19):6204. DOI: 10.3390/s24196204.

Cummings, J. J. and Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? a meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media psychology, 19(2):272-309. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.

Czimre, K., Teperics, K., Molnár, E., Kapusi, J., Saidi, I., Gusman, D., and Bujdosó, G. (2024). Potentials in using vr for facilitating geography teaching in classrooms: a systematic review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 13(9):332. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi13090332.

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. science, 323(5910):66-69. DOI: 10.1126/science.1167311.

Edler, D., Wiktorin, D., Becker, G., Schweins, U., Reichert, K., Keil, J., and Dickmann, F. (2025). Potential of immersive virtual reality for teaching geography in schools. KN-Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information, pages 1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s42489-025-00204-1.

Harms, P. (2019). Automated usability evaluation of virtual reality applications. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 26(3):1-36. DOI: 10.1145/3301423.

Jerald, J. (2015). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality. Morgan & Claypool. DOI: 10.1145/2792790.

Kablitz, D. (2025). Bridging theory and practice with immersive virtual reality: A study on transfer facilitation in vet. Education Sciences, 15(8):959. DOI: 10.3390/educsci15080959.

Kamińska, D., Zwoliński, G., and Laska-Le'sniewicz, A. (2022). Usability testing of virtual reality applications—the pilot study. Sensors, 22(4):1342. DOI: 10.3390/s22041342.

Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., and Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology, 3(3):203-220. DOI: 10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3.

Laugwitz, B., Held, T., and Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Symposium of the Austrian HCI and usability engineering group, pages 63-76. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6.

Liu, C., Meng, S., Zheng, W., and Zhou, Z. (2025). Research on the impact of immersive virtual reality classroom on student experience and concentration. Virtual Reality, 29(2):82. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-025-01153-w.

Makransky, G. and Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5):1141-1164. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2.

Makransky, G. and Petersen, G. B. (2019). Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 134:15-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.002.

Makransky, G. and Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (camil): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational psychology review, 33(3):937-958. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2.

Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annual review of psychology, 70(1):531-549. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744.

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., and 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.

Oliveira, L. d. (2011). Estudo metodológico e cognitivo do mapa. In Almeida, R. D. d., editor, Cartografia Escolar. Contexto, São Paulo. Book.

Parong, J. and Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of educational psychology, 110(6):785. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000241.

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., and 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778.

Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., and Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Construction of a benchmark for the user experience questionnaire (ueq). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4(4):40-44. DOI: 10.9781/ijimai.2017.445.

Shelton, B. E. and Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In The First IEEE International Workshop Agumented Reality Toolkit,, pages 8-pp. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ART.2002.1106948.

Simielli, M. E. R. (2011). O mapa como meio de comunicação e a alfabetização cartográfica. In Almeida, R. D. d., editor, Cartografia Escolar. Contexto, São Paulo. Book.

Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535):3549-3557. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0138.

Souchet, A. D., Lourdeaux, D., Pagani, A., and Rebenitsch, L. (2023). A narrative review of immersive virtual reality’s ergonomics and risks at the workplace: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Virtual Reality, 27(1):19-50. DOI: 10.1007/s10055-022-00672-0.

Stanney, K. M., Kennedy, R. S., and Drexler, J. M. (1997). Cybersickness is not simulator sickness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting, volume 41, pages 1138-1142. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. DOI: 10.1177/107118139704100292.

Stvrechová, M., vCern`y, M., vSavsinka, vC., Stachovn, Z., vSavsinková, A., Holubec, F., and vSvédová, H. (2025). Collaborative immersive virtual environments in geography education on climate zones: A ux case study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(12):455. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi14120455.