Understanding extended VR use in undergraduate STEM education: a focused ethnographic case study of neuroanatomy instruction

Abstract

Background:

While virtual reality (VR) shows promise for enhancing STEM education, most research relies on short interventions with pre- and post-designs, limiting the understanding of how classroom integration of VR unfolds across extended instructional periods and excluding instructor behavior and perspectives from analysis.

Objective:

This study examines instructor and student dynamics during semester-long VR integration in an undergraduate neuroanatomy lab instruction, applying the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework to analyze instructor knowledge profiles and the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) to examine student motivational responses.

Methods:

A focused ethnographic case study was conducted at a public university in California during the Spring 2024 semester. Data included seven classroom observations across 16 weeks, a 60-min semi-structured instructor interview, and a 45-min student focus group (n = 6). Analysis employed theoretically grounded coding with TPACK and EVT constructs, triangulation across data sources, and inter-coder reliability procedures.

Results:

Three key findings emerged: (1) The instructor’s TPACK profile revealed strong Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), i.e., understanding VR’s potential for neuroanatomical visualization, but underdeveloped Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), which created implementation gaps; (2) Student experiences reflected EVT dynamics where low expectancy beliefs, unclear utility value perceptions, and elevated cost of VR overshadowed intrinsic value; (3) Misalignment between instructor TPACK assumptions and student EVT profiles generated friction and discrepancy that both parties recognized but could not fully resolve during the semester.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrates that effective VR integration requires alignment between the instructor’s knowledge, especially technological pedagogical knowledge, and the student’s motivational dynamics. A TPACK-EVT integration framework is proposed to connect instructor knowledge to student motivation, offering a theoretical contribution to VR education research and practical implications for faculty development.

1 Introduction

1.1 The promise and challenge of VR in higher education

Virtual reality (VR) has gained substantial attention as a transformative technology for STEM education, with meta-analyses reporting positive effects on learning outcomes across diverse contexts (Cromley et al., 2023; Radianti et al., 2020). The immersive, three-dimensional nature of VR offers unique affordances for visualizing complex spatial relationships, which are particularly valuable in disciplines such as anatomy, chemistry, and engineering, where traditional two-dimensional representations may limit student understanding (Makransky and Petersen, 2021).

However, a critical examination of the VR education research literature reveals significant methodological limitations that constrain the applicability of findings to authentic classroom contexts. First, student exposure to VR is frequently restricted to brief sessions–often 15–60 min–limiting students’ ability to overcome initial learning curves with VR interfaces and capitalize on the technology’s educational affordances (Lawson et al., 2024). Second, the predominance of experimental and quasi-experimental designs with pre- and post-comparisons treats VR as a fixed intervention rather than a complex, evolving instructional medium (Radianti et al., 2020). Third, instructors are typically excluded from research designs despite their pivotal role in facilitating technology integration and shaping classroom learning experiences.

Beyond methodological concerns, practical barriers persist in impeding the widespread adoption of VR in higher education. These include significant hardware and software costs, physical discomfort and motion sickness experienced by some users, variation in display quality across price points, and substantial learning curves associated with VR interfaces (Jensen and Konradsen, 2018; Saredakis et al., 2020). Students’ prior VR experience–whether through gaming or other contexts–may not transfer to proficiency with educational VR platforms, as recreational and educational VR often require different skills and orientations (Makransky et al., 2019).

These limitations highlight the need for qualitative research that examines extended VR use in authentic classroom settings, considers both instructor and student perspectives, and captures the evolving dynamics of technology integration over time.

1.2 Research gaps and objectives

Three specific gaps in the research literature motivate this study. First and foremost, there is a temporal gap. The predominance of short-term interventions hinders understanding of how VR integration dynamics evolve over extended instructional periods, such as academic semesters. Secondly, there is a perspective gap. The systematic exclusion of instructors from VR research designs obscures the ways in which their knowledge, beliefs, and pedagogical decisions shape student experiences. Lastly, the theoretical gap, characterized by the limited application of established frameworks–particularly those connecting instructor knowledge to student motivation–constrains the field’s theoretical development.

To address these gaps, this study employs a focused ethnographic approach (Andreassen et al., 2020; Rashid et al., 2019) to examine the semester-long integration of VR in an undergraduate neuroanatomy laboratory course. We applied two complementary theoretical frameworks: the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006), to analyze instructor knowledge profiles, and the Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002), to examine student motivational dynamics. By integrating these frameworks, we aim to illuminate how instructor knowledge shapes student motivation and experience in VR-enhanced learning environments.

1.3 Research questions

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

The TPACK framework, introduced by Mishra and Koehler (2006), provides a comprehensive lens for understanding the complex knowledge required for effective technology integration in teaching. Building on Shulman’s (1986) construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), TPACK suggests that teaching with technology requires the interplay of three primary knowledge domains: Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Content Knowledge (CK).

The TPACK framework identifies seven interrelated constructs (Table 1). Of particular relevance to VR integration is Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), which encompasses knowledge of how teaching and learning are affected when specific technologies are used. Prior research suggests that TPK is often underdeveloped among faculty who adopt immersive technologies, as they may understand VR capabilities and possess strong pedagogical skills separately but struggle with effectively scaffolding technology-mediated learning (Bower et al., 2020; Shin and Kim, 2024).

For VR specifically, TPK encompasses critical pedagogical competencies that extend beyond basic technology operation (TK) or understanding VR’s representational affordances (TCK). These include structuring progressive guidance sequences for VR skill development, managing troubleshooting and technical support in immersive learning environments, scaffolding the integration of multimodal content (visual, spatial, haptic), and adapting assessment approaches for immersive contexts. While TK and TCK are necessary foundations, they are insufficient without TPK knowledge of how to orchestrate the technology-mediated learning process effectively.

Notably, no formalized TPACK-VR framework currently exists in peer-reviewed literature. Researchers have adapted the original framework to immersive contexts rather than applying a standardized VR-specific version (Lee and Wu, 2024; Thohir et al., 2023). This study contributes to this emerging area by operationalizing TPACK for semester-long VR integration and identifying VR-specific manifestations of each construct.

2.2 Expectancy-value theory (EVT)

To understand student motivational dynamics in VR-integrated learning environments, we draw on Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002), which has been recently updated as Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT) to emphasize the context-bound nature of motivation (Eccles and Wigfield, 2020). EVT believes that achievement-related choices and performance are predicted by two key factors: expectancy beliefs (individuals’ beliefs about how well they will perform) and subjective task values (the reasons for engaging in the task).

EVT identifies four value components: intrinsic value (enjoyment derived from the task itself), utility value (usefulness for future goals), attainment value (personal importance tied to identity), and cost (negative aspects of engagement). Following Barron and Hulleman (2015), we treat cost as a distinct component, not merely the inverse of value, encompassing effort cost, opportunity cost, psychological cost (often includes ego cost), and emotional cost.

Direct EVT applications to VR education remain limited but instructive. Ferdinand et al. (2023) conducted an experimental intervention manipulating perceived usefulness (utility value) before a VR biology lesson with 196 10th-grade students, finding significantly greater learning achievement when utility value was primed. While this secondary school context differs from our undergraduate neuroanatomy setting, the underlying motivational dynamics, particularly how value perceptions shape engagement, provide theoretical grounding for examining VR-integrated learning. Broader EVT applications in STEM education offer additional support for our framework. Perez et al. (2019) identified distinct expectancy-value-cost profiles predicting STEM persistence, with students showing moderate expectancy/values combined with high costs demonstrating the worst outcomes. This conceptualization proves particularly relevant for technology-mediated learning contexts as students navigate content learning and technology mastery simultaneously (Perez et al., 2019). The dual learning demand can create cognitive and emotional burdens that compete with perceived value, potentially undermining motivation even when students recognize the technology’s potential benefits. While the specific technologies differ (VR headsets vs. laboratory equipment or software), the underlying EVT mechanism, i.e., how cost perceptions can overwhelm value perceptions, should operate similarly across technology-intensive learning environments. Our study examines whether these theoretically grounded EVT dynamics manifest in extended VR integration and how they interact with instructor knowledge profiles. Specifically, this study identifies five constructs that depict students’ EVT profiles in a VR-integrated learning environment (Table 2).

2.3 Opportunity for framework integration: TPACK-EVT

A notable gap in the research literature is the lack of frameworks that connect instructor knowledge to student motivation in technology-mediated contexts. TPACK and EVT are coupled in this study to capture both instructor and student dimensions of VR integration. Specifically, we examine how the instructor’s TPACK profile, particularly their TPK regarding knowledge of how to scaffold technology-mediated learning, relates to the EVT dynamics experienced by students. We contend that effective VR integration requires alignment between instructor TPK and student EVT profiles, including their expectancy beliefs, value perceptions, and cost experiences. Importantly, we do not assert that TPK directly causes specific EVT outcomes. Rather, we propose a mediating pathway: instructor TPK shapes pedagogical decisions (scaffolding approaches, success criteria communication, support structure design), which in turn influence the quality of students’ technology-mediated learning experiences, thereby affecting their EVT dynamics. Misalignment in this relationship may explain why technically successful implementations, where VR functions properly and content is well-designed, can still produce negative student experiences.

We hypothesize specific TPK-EVT alignment mechanisms for three EVT constructs that are most responsive to in-class pedagogical decisions: 1) TPK and Expectancy Beliefs: When instructors lack TPK knowledge of how to scaffold VR learning progressively, they may fail to establish clear success criteria or provide appropriate performance feedback. Students receiving ambiguous guidance about what constitutes successful VR task completion will struggle to develop accurate expectancy beliefs about their ability to succeed, regardless of their actual technical competence. 2) TPK and Intrinsic Value: When instructors possess TPK knowledge of how to leverage VR’s unique affordances pedagogically, not just understanding what VR can represent (TCK) but how to structure engaging exploration sequences, students are more likely to experience intrinsic value through meaningful interaction with immersive content. Conversely, poor TPK may lead to VR activities that feel like technology obstacles rather than learning opportunities. 3) TPK and Cost: When instructors lack TPK of VR classroom management, including how to structure technical support, troubleshoot efficiently, and minimize downtime, students experience elevated costs from time spent on technical issues rather than learning. These costs include effort cost (cognitive load from simultaneous technology and content learning), time cost (class periods consumed by troubleshooting), and emotional cost (frustration from technical barriers).

Two EVT constructs, i.e., utility value and attainment value, were not included in our initial hypotheses because they are shaped primarily by factors outside instructor control during a single semester. Utility value depends on students' pre-existing career goals and perceptions of how course content connects to those goals, while attainment value reflects identity development and personal importance typically established before course enrollment. While instructors can attempt to communicate utility (e.g., explaining career relevance), students' perceptions of utility are often determined by broader curricular context and life goals. We remain open to discover how TPK might interact with these constructs but focus our framework on the three EVT components most malleable through instructional practice: expectancy, intrinsic value, and cost. We envision this TPACK-EVT integration provides a theoretical foundation for examining how instructor knowledge shapes student motivation in VR-integrated instruction in this current study.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Research design

This study employs a focused ethnographic case study approach. While traditional ethnography involves extended cultural immersion over months to years, focused ethnography adapts ethnographic methods for bounded contemporary settings where time constraints and specific research questions necessitate more concentrated data collection (Knoblauch, 2005; Pink and Morgan, 2013). In educational research, focused ethnography is suitable for examining interaction patterns within specific institutional contexts, such as classrooms, over defined periods, such as academic semesters (Wall, 2015).

Focused ethnography is characterized by: (a) intensive, time-limited observation; (b) data-intensive methods (video, audio, detailed notes) that compensate for temporal brevity; (c) focus on specific interactions rather than entire cultural systems; and (d) researcher “alterity” and shared background knowledge enabling efficient and intersubjective interpretation (Knoblauch, 2005). These characteristics align well with this study, which examines the integration of VR in higher education. The semester provides natural boundaries, VR interactions generate rich observational data, and researchers typically share an educational background with participants.

3.2 Study context

The study was conducted at a public comprehensive university in Central California during the Spring 2024 semester. The focal course was a neuroanatomy laboratory, paired with a lecture course taught by a different instructor. The laboratory instructor was a neuroscientist by training who had participated in a year-long extended reality (XR) faculty learning community (XR-FLC) the previous year, where she was introduced to VR and piloted initial integration (Wu et al., 2025).

Despite formal faculty development preparation through the XR-FLC, including technical training and pedagogical support, the instructor still encountered substantial TPK challenges during semester-long implementation. This suggests that the 1-year professional development, while valuable for TK and TCK development, may still be insufficient for developing robust TPK for extended VR integration. The persistent TPK gaps observed in our study, despite intentional preparation, underscore the need for ongoing, iterative faculty support rather than one-time training interventions.

The course integrated VR throughout the semester using syGlass, a specialized third-party VR platform for volumetric data visualization (Figure 1). Students worked with actual MRI brain scans rather than simplified anatomical models, a deliberate design choice by the instructor to provide authentic clinical training experiences. The semester included two major VR-integrated components: (1) individual work identifying gross anatomical structures and neural pathways in VR, and (2) collaborative team projects creating narrated VR tutorials about brain function disorders using real patient data provided by syGlass.

FIGURE 1

3.3 Participants

The laboratory instructor was a female faculty member with a doctoral degree in behavioral neuroscience and extensive experience integrating technology into research and teaching. She had a strong background in physics and biophysics that informed her technological orientation.

Thirty-eight students were enrolled across two laboratory sections (n = 19 each). Students were primarily biology, health sciences, and chemistry majors taking the neuroanatomy course as an elective. Six students (three from each section) participated in the focus group. Participants were purposively sampled to represent diversity across multiple dimensions: gender (4 female, 2 male), academic major (biology, health sciences, and chemistry), and observed engagement levels during classroom observations (ranging from highly engaged to visibly struggling). This sampling strategy aimed to capture a range of EVT experiences rather than assuming uniform student responses to VR integration. Focus group recruitment occurred toward the end of multiple classroom observations, allowing the research team to identify students representing different engagement patterns observed across the semester.

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. The instructor provided written informed consent for observation, interview, and use of course materials. Focus group participants provided separate informed consent. All participants were assigned pseudonyms.

3.4 Data collection

Multiple data streams were collected to enable triangulation (Table 3), which entails: 1) Observation Protocol: The principal investigator and two graduate research assistants conducted classroom observations using a structured field note template that included timestamps, descriptive notes, analytical memos, and theory-linked observations (TPACK and EVT indicators). Observations captured the physical environment, instructional activities, participant behaviors, verbal interactions, and technical events. 2) Interview Protocol: The instructor interview followed a semi-structured protocol addressing educational and professional background, technology integration philosophy, TPACK-related knowledge domains, course design decisions, reflections on implementation challenges, and plans for future iterations. 3) Focus Group Protocol: The student focus group addressed: course expectations, VR technology experience, EVT components (expectancy, values, costs), challenges encountered, and recommendations for improvement. 4) Course Documents: The instructor provided the research team with the course’s Canvas shell. Access to syllabus, assignments, grading rubrics, and announcements captured classroom management dynamics and instructional design intentions.

3.5 Data analysis

Data analysis followed an iterative process integrating deductive and inductive approaches (Miles et al., 2014). The first cycle employed a priori codes derived from TPACK (seven constructs) and EVT (five constructs). Codebooks were developed collaboratively by the research team, specifying: (a) code definitions from theoretical literature (e.g., TPK defined per Mishra and Koehler, 2006), (b) operational definitions for the VR context (see Tables 1, 2), (c) inclusion and exclusion criteria for each code, and (d) illustrative examples from pilot coding.

To illustrate our coding approach: When the instructor stated, ‘I wanted them to be exposed into the real MRI scans… put that knowledge into the real live data,’ this was coded as TCK because it demonstrated understanding of how VR uniquely represents neuroanatomical content in clinically authentic ways. When a student stated ‘I had no idea what my expectations were of me. And then it just felt like I was falling short of them constantly,’ this was coded as low expectancy belief (EVT) because it reflected uncertainty about success criteria and diminished confidence in ability to meet unstated performance standards. Field observation noting ‘She [instructor] is running around putting out fires all class. She has not been able to sit down once’ was coded as TPK gap (specifically, inadequate support structure planning) because it illustrated consequences of insufficient pedagogical knowledge for managing VR classroom logistics. The second cycle involved axial coding to identify relationships among codes and between data sources. For example, we examined how instructor TPK patterns (from interview and observations) related to student EVT dynamics (from focus group and observations). The third cycle employed selective coding to develop assertions addressing each research question, explicitly requiring triangulation across at least two data sources for each major claim.

To ensure inter-coder reliability, the principal investigator and the graduate research assistants independently coded a subset of data (one observation, one interview excerpt, one focus group excerpt) using the theoretical coding scheme. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached, with the facilitation of the external research partner (remote). The reconciled coding scheme was applied to complete coding of the remaining data with bi-weekly peer debriefing.

With multiple streams of data, triangulation was performed by verifying convergent evidence from at least two data sources for each major finding. Findings were documented with supporting quotes from multiple sources, and disconfirming evidence was actively sought. Throughout the analysis, researchers maintained analytical memos that documented emerging interpretations, connections to theory, and methodological decisions, thereby providing an audit trail for the research process.

3.6 Researcher positionality

In a prior funded project, the principal investigator led the XR-FLC in which the instructor participated, creating a collegial relationship that facilitated access but required attention to potential bias. In the current study, the PI maintained a non-participant observer role during classroom observations and employed peer debriefing with graduate research assistants unfamiliar with the instructor to challenge interpretations. The research team brought backgrounds in educational technology, STEM education, and qualitative methods, informing and potentially shaping analysis.

4 Results

The research team performed detailed coding for each construct within the TPACK and EVT frameworks and conducted analytical interpretation and triangulation to address the three research questions. By examining the codes generated and patterns identified, three key findings emerged: (1) the instructor demonstrated strong TCK but was still developing TPK, creating implementation gaps; (2) student experiences reflected EVT dynamics dominated by elevated cost and misaligned values; and (3) misalignment between the instructor’s TPACK assumptions and student EVT profiles generated friction that both parties recognized but could not fully resolve.

4.1 Finding 1: Instructor TPACK profile reveals TCK strength and TPK development needs

Corresponding to RQ1, the instructor’s TPACK profile was characterized by strong Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), i.e., a clear understanding of how VR could uniquely represent neuroanatomical content, but developing Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), creating a gap between her vision for VR integration and her capacity to scaffold that vision in practice.

4.1.1 Strong Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

The instructor demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of VR’s affordances for neuroanatomy education (Table 4). The instructor understood how VR could uniquely represent neuroanatomical content in ways impossible with traditional media. Students recognized this potential even as they struggled with implementation. The instructor’s TCK was evident in the articulation of why VR was uniquely suited for the content:

“I wanted them to be exposed into the real MRI scans … put that knowledge into the real live data … you are not going to open up the brain, you just do the MRI scan. And that’s the scans that you are going to read.” (Instructor Interview)

This TCK led the instructor to reject commercially available anatomy models in favor of authentic clinical data:

“I looked into a couple of commercially viable programs … they did not have what I wanted. They did not have specifics, they did not have cases … I did not really feel like that’s what I wanted them to be more exposed to the research rather than, hey, this is a model and these are the structures.” (Instructor Interview)

Classroom observations confirmed her TCK in practice. Field notes documented the instructor’s facility using VR to demonstrate spatial relationships:

“She was able to get the student to orient to the correct plane to make the segmentation. She was very proficient with the VR application.” (Field Notes, March 7)

4.1.2 Developing technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)

While the instructor’s TCK was strong, her TPK, i.e., knowledge of how to scaffold technology-mediated learning, was still developing for semester-long VR integration (Table 5). This is manifested in several areas:

Scaffolding decisions reflecting PK philosophy but not VR-adapted: The instructor’s pedagogical philosophy emphasized discovery learning and student agency—sound PK principles—but these were not adapted for VR’s unique demands:

“I did not give them the pictures … I wanted them to really put effort on to identify the structure.” (Instructor Interview)

“Purposely, I did not put any details because it’s harder for me if I am changing my plans … I did not know how students will take these or that part.” (Instructor Interview)

Reactive rather than proactive support: The instructor acknowledged that the understanding of VR scaffolding needs emerged through implementation rather than planning:

“Now I did it, I know how it’s going to be, how much students need time for this and for that. I did not know at the beginning. So that component would be much better explained.” (Instructor Interview)

Recognition of TPK gaps: Classroom observations captured the consequences of TPK gaps:

“AH is running around putting out fires all class. She has not been able to sit down once.” (Field Notes, April 23)

“Students asking the same questions repeatedly; instructor demonstrating for them, then checking understanding without headset before leaving.” (Field Notes, April 23)

4.1.3 Instructor TPACK profile summary

Table 6 summarizes the instructor’s TPACK profile assessment based on triangulated evidence. To reiterate, the instructor’s TPACK profile demonstrates strengths in understanding the potential of VR for neuroanatomy learning (TCK) and general pedagogical philosophy (PK), but weaknesses in the practical knowledge of how to scaffold technology-mediated learning (TPK). This created a gap between the instructor’s vision/anticipation and the students’ experience.

4.2 Finding 2: Student experiences reflect EVT dynamics dominated by cost

Corresponding to RQ2, student experiences were systematically shaped by EVT dynamics, particularly the interaction between low expectancy beliefs, misaligned value perceptions, and disproportionate costs that exceeded perceived benefits.

4.2.1 Low expectancy beliefs

As shown in Table 7, student expectancy beliefs were systematically undermined by unclear task requirements, inadequate scaffolding, and frequent technical failures. The absence of clear criteria made it cumbersome for students to calibrate their effort toward success.

Notably, students entered the course with a limited VR background and quickly encountered unclear success criteria, undermining their expectancy for success:

“I have zero VR background … always felt discouraged using VR.” (Focus Group)

“I had no idea what my expectations were of me. And then it just felt like I was falling short of them constantly.” (Focus Group)

The absence of explicit instruction left students uncertain about what success looked like:

“There’s no instructions on how to use VR really. And then you just kind of told like, you’re thrown in headfirst.” (Focus Group)

Classroom observations corroborated this pattern, with field notes documenting students’ anxiety about performance:

“Some students are scared (maybe of being slow compared to partner). Some students love it and are excited.” (Field Notes, March 5)

4.2.2 Mixed value perceptions

When evaluating the three value constructs, i.e., intrinsic value, utility value, and attainment value, it is observed that value perceptions among students were mixed and often contradictory to the instructor’s anticipation. Value perceptions also evolved throughout the semester.

Intrinsic value (present but competing): Intrinsic value was present, but it was competing with frustration. When technical barriers were low, students showed genuine interest in exploring VR. The “aha moments” described suggest intrinsic value could be cultivated with better scaffolding. Students recognized VR’s unique experiential qualities

“It’s more in depth. You see it with your own eyes and have a better understanding of things.” (Focus Group)

“It’s more intimate in a way … more hands-on.” (Focus Group)

Field observations captured moments of genuine engagement:

“They would use VR to explore, not only to complete the assignment but showed real interest in learning something.” (Field Notes, March 7)

Utility Value (Misalignment): A critical gap emerged between the instructor’s intended and the student’s perceived utility. The instructor viewed VR skills as professionally valuable; students primarily evaluated utility based on immediate academic relevance (lecture correlation). The troubleshooting skills the instructor valued were experienced as barriers by students:

“I feel like the lab did not at all correlate with lecture … it just did not really correlate.” (Focus Group)

“I could have done a lot better in the class had I had the lab to help me correlate with the lecture.” (Focus Group)

Attainment Value (Lower than Assumed): The instructor assumed students enrolled in the elective due to a deep interest. Focus group data revealed otherwise:

“I just needed like a lab … I just randomly picked this one.” (Focus Group)

“I’m not personally interested in like becoming a neurosurgeon.” (Focus Group)

4.2.3 Elevated cost perceptions

Cost emerged as the dominant EVT component, and cost perceptions were disproportionately high compared to perceived value, resulting in a negative EVT balance (Table 8). Technical troubleshooting dominated the cost structure, overshadowing potential learning benefits. Both the instructor and the students experienced high emotional costs.

Cognitive Load Cost: Students faced simultaneous demands of learning neuroanatomy content and VR technology:

“Neuroanatomy in itself is already difficult, and you throw in a different aspect of VR that everybody’s not familiar with.” (Focus Group)

Time/Effort Cost: Technical troubleshooting consumed instructional time:

“There are a lot of times where stuff just crashed … we eventually just left early because there was like nothing we could do.” (Focus Group)

“You spend the whole class waiting for her to get to you … you waste your whole lab time.” (Focus Group)

Emotional Cost: Both students and the instructor experienced significant frustration:

“I cried last week.” (Focus Group)

“All of us were just like, barely hanging on. Barely just like, okay, I just know enough to get my assignment done.” (Focus Group)

“It was pretty stressful for me… I had to deal with all of the things” (Instructor Interview)

4.2.4 EVT balance assessment

Table 9 summarizes the EVT alignment between instructor assumptions and student perceptions. The EVT analysis reveals a systematic misalignment between the instructor’s and students' motivational frames. The instructor operated from assumptions about student interest and values that did not align with student reality, leading to what she interpreted as “unwillingness,” but was actually a rational response to the high perceived cost relative to the perceived value.

4.3 Finding 3: TPACK-EVT misalignment creates integration friction

Corresponding to RQ3, the relationship between instructor TPACK and student EVT was characterized by misalignments, specifically, the instructor’s TPK gaps directly shaped the negative EVT dynamics students experienced. Both parties recognized this misalignment but were unable to fully resolve it during the semester.

4.3.1 TPK gaps and impacts on EVT consequences

Analysis revealed direct connections between TPK gaps and EVT outcomes. Specifically, the TPK gap in Scaffolding resulted in Low Expectancy among students from the get-go. The instructor’s discovery-learning philosophy, not adapted for VR, left students without clear success criteria:

“This class would have been much, much easier and much more enjoyable if we just had clear instructions.” (Focus Group)

Furthermore, the TPK gap in Onboarding resulted in high costs. Without a systematic introduction to VR, students spent excessive time on basic operations:

“More time trying to figure out VR versus actually learning.” (Focus Group—paraphrased from data)

Lastly, the TPK gap in Support Structures also contributed to the elevated Emotional Cost. The instructor managed 36 students’ technical issues alone:

“I had to deal with all of the things that syGlass had put all the technical aspects, on top of that the emotional component of the students … It was pretty stressful for me.” (Instructor Interview)

4.3.2 Mutual recognition of misalignment

Both the instructor and the students recognized the misalignment, demonstrating reflexive awareness. For instance, the instructor recognized:

“My expectations were too high from the syGlass as well from the program … it’s still on me because that’s what I was expecting.” (Instructor Interview)

“I think I had the outline of the class, but purposely, I did not put any details … Now I did it, I know how it’s going to be.” (Instructor Interview)

Similarly, the students also reflected:

“I feel like they tried to help as much as possible because I think this is also new to them.” (Focus Group)

4.3.3 The paradox: Negative experience, positive outcomes

Notably, despite negative EVT dynamics, both the instructor and students reported that learning outcomes were achieved. The instructor assessed:

“One merit is that whatever obstacles we had on the way, no matter how hard it was doing along the way, they still beat that, they still completed the projects … In the end, we met all the objectives.” (Instructor Interview)

Meanwhile, during the focus group, there was a consensus reached by students, which acknowledged:

“I can say for sure. I learned more in this class than actual anatomy.” (Focus Group)

“On the back end, it is like, you know what, we did get to see some things that I guess I otherwise would not have been able to see in a different way.” (Focus Group)

This paradox, where negative experiences are coexistent with positive outcomes, suggests that EVT dynamics shape the quality of the learning experience independently of learning achievement, a distinction with important implications for VR integration design.

4.4 Temporal analysis of aligned TPACK-EVT integration

As a focused ethnography study, the research team also conducted a temporal analysis (Figure 2) supported by the comprehensive collection of multiple streams of data and cross-data triangulation. The temporal analysis contributes to a better understanding of how TPACK and EVT patterns evolved across the semester, categorized into four different phases, including Phase 1: Early/VR Introduction (Weeks 1–4), Phase 2: Skill Development (Weeks 5–8), Phase 3: Intensive/Team Project Work (Weeks 9–12), and Phase 4: Culmination (Weeks 13–16).

FIGURE 2

4.4.1 Instructor’s TPACK evolution

This study made several key observations about the instructor’s TPACK development and manifestation. Notably, the TPK gap was most pronounced in early phases, but consequences accumulated throughout. TCK remained strong throughout but could not compensate for TPK gaps. Instructor TPACK development was evident in reflective comments about future implementation. Table 10 summarizes the overall evolution of the TPACK pattern.

4.4.2 Students’ EVT dynamics evolution

On students’ EVT dynamics progression, different constructs demonstrated distinct patterns of development across the semester. Specifically, Cost peaked during the Intensive Phase (Weeks 9–12) while Intrinsic Value was present throughout but rarely dominated the experience. The Utility Value gap (lab-lecture disconnect) was persistent and unresolved. The Attainment Value mismatch between instructor assumptions and student reality was consistent. Table 11 summarizes the evolution of the EVT pattern across the phases throughout the semester.

4.4.3 TPACK-EVT integration and alignment evolution

As mentioned earlier, there is a lack of frameworks in the research literature that connect instructor knowledge to student motivation in technology-mediated contexts. One of the contributions of this study stems from the endeavor to address the alignment between the faculty’s TPACK profile and students’ EVT dynamics as they co-evolve across the semester. Table 12 presents the key TPACK-EVT relationships observed, along with evidence supporting them.

The co-examination of the TPACK development and EVT dynamics progression in this study contributes to the preliminary establishment of a TPACK-EVT Integration Framework (Figure 3) for future VR implementation analysis in similar STEM classroom settings, but it warrants further validation and modification.

FIGURE 3

5 Discussion

5.1 Theoretical contributions

5.1.1 TPK as critical domain for VR integration

Our findings empirically demonstrate why TPK, rather than TK or TCK, emerges as the critical bottleneck. The instructor exhibited strong TK as she operated VR equipment proficiently, troubleshot technical issues effectively, and demonstrated comfort with the technology. She also exhibited strong TCK, articulating a clear, sophisticated vision for how VR’s immersive affordances could represent neuroanatomical structures in clinically authentic ways that traditional media cannot. Yet despite these strengths, implementation challenges persisted and student experiences suffered. This pattern, where TK and TCK are present but insufficient, empirically validates TPK as the critical domain for extended VR integration. Technical competence and content-technology alignment are necessary foundations, but without the pedagogical knowledge of how to scaffold technology-mediated learning over time, even well-designed VR implementations can produce negative student experiences.

This pattern may be common among innovative faculty who understand technology’s potential and possess pedagogical expertise but underestimate how teaching and instruction change with immersive technology. This finding extends prior TPACK research, suggesting TPK is often underdeveloped for emerging technologies (Bower et al., 2020). For VR specifically, TPK encompasses onboarding students to VR interfaces, scaffolding progressive skill development, managing classroom logistics with limited equipment, providing technical support, and adapting assessment for immersive contexts.

5.1.2 Cost as dominant EVT factor in VR learning

The EVT analysis reveals that cost is potentially the dominant motivational factor in VR-integrated learning, overshadowing positive value components even when students recognize the potential of VR. This finding aligns with Barron and Hulleman’s (2015) argument that cost deserves treatment as a distinct component rather than merely the inverse of value. In technology-intensive contexts, the “dual learning demand” (content plus technology) may systematically increase costs in ways that traditional instruction does not.

5.1.3 TPACK-EVT integration

This study’s primary theoretical contribution is demonstrating how TPACK and EVT can be productively integrated to analyze VR implementation dynamics. The findings reveal a mediated pathway: instructor TPACK (particularly TPK) shapes pedagogical decisions, which in turn influence student EVT dynamics and overall learning experience quality. When TPK is insufficient to scaffold technology learning effectively, students experience a cascade of negative EVT outcomes: low expectancy (unclear success criteria leave students uncertain about their ability to succeed), diminished utility value (poor lab-lecture connection makes VR activities feel disconnected from learning goals), and elevated cost (excessive troubleshooting time, emotional frustration, and cognitive overload from simultaneous content and technology demands). This TPACK-EVT relationship suggests that faculty development for VR integration should explicitly address TPK alongside technical training.

Conversely, when TPK is well-developed, instructors can potentially calibrate pedagogical support to address student expectancy beliefs, clarify value propositions, and minimize costs, though our study demonstrates this alignment is challenging to achieve. Importantly, our framework addresses all five EVT constructs, though with varying levels of instructor influence. Three constructs, i.e., expectancy, intrinsic value, and cost, proved most responsive to instructor TPK decisions during the semester, as hypothesized. Two constructs, i.e., utility value and attainment value, emerged as shaped primarily by factors beyond immediate instructor control (career goals, curricular context, identity development). However, our findings revealed an important utility value dynamic: misalignment between instructor-intended utility (career preparation through authentic clinical data) and student-perceived utility (immediate lecture correlation for exam performance). This suggests that even when instructors cannot fully control utility value perceptions, being aware of student utility frameworks is essential for effective integration.

This TPACK-EVT integration addresses a gap in immersive technology research. While studies have separately applied TPACK to VR contexts (Shin and Kim, 2024; Thohir et al., 2023) and EVT to technology-enhanced learning (Ferdinand et al., 2023), no prior research has systematically connected instructor knowledge frameworks to student motivation theories in extended VR implementations. Our framework provides both theoretical grounding for understanding why technically proficient VR integrations may still produce negative experiences and practical guidance for faculty development interventions.

5.2 Practical implications

This research study is ultimately directed at understanding how STEM instructors can integrate VR in classroom settings more effectively. Based on our TPACK-EVT framework and empirical findings, we offer actionable recommendations for three stakeholder groups.

5.2.1 For instructors integrating VR

5.2.2 For faculty development programs

5.2.3 For institutional policy

Our study revealed institutional barriers to transparent VR integration. For example, course descriptions could not be updated to reflect VR requirements without formal curriculum revision processes. Institutions should: (a) Develop streamlined processes for communicating technology-intensive course features to students during registration, (b) Consider “technology tags” or designations students can see before enrolling, (c) Provide infrastructure support (dedicated VR labs, technical staff, equipment maintenance budgets) that removes logistics burden from individual instructors, (d) Recognize VR integration as requiring additional preparation time in faculty workload calculations.

5.3 Limitations and future research

Several limitations should be acknowledged and shape the interpretation of our findings. First, this single-case study conducted at one institution with one instructor limits statistical generalizability. Our findings should be understood as an in-depth examination of one VR integration implementation rather than patterns guaranteed to replicate across all contexts. The theoretical framework we propose (TPACK-EVT integration) requires testing across multiple implementations to establish broader validity. The instructor’s specific background (neuroscience PhD, physics training, prior XR-FLC participation) may not represent typical faculty attempting VR integration. Second, the student focus group (n = 6), while purposively sampled for diversity, may overrepresent students with strong opinions, either particularly positive or negative, who were motivated to participate. Students with moderate or ambivalent experiences may be underrepresented. While we triangulated focus group data with classroom observations to mitigate this limitation, claims about cohort-wide patterns should be interpreted cautiously. The focus group provides depth of understanding about EVT dynamics but cannot establish prevalence of specific experiences across all 38 enrolled students.

Third, the syGlass platform’s specific characteristics may not generalize to other VR applications. The instructor deliberately chose to use authentic MRI data and real patient cases rather than simplified anatomical models, a decision reflecting her TCK vision for clinical authenticity. This choice likely elevated cost (working with messy real data) while enhancing perceived authenticity. VR platforms using simplified, game-like models might produce different TPK challenges and EVT dynamics. Similarly, VR applications in other disciplines (chemistry, engineering, geology) may involve different content-technology relationships that alter the TPACK-EVT dynamics we observed. Fourth, the researcher’s prior relationship with the instructor through the XR-FLC may have influenced interpretations. To mitigate this, we employed peer debriefing with graduate research assistants who had no prior relationship with the instructor, actively sought disconfirming evidence during analysis, and maintained transparent audit trails of analytical decisions. However, peer researchers should be aware of this positionality. Finally, the focused ethnographic approach, while appropriate for semester-long investigation, captures only one implementation cycle. The instructor explicitly noted she would approach a second iteration differently (“Now I did it, I know how it is going to be”). Longitudinal research following instructors across multiple VR integration cycles would illuminate TPK development trajectories we could not capture.

Despite these limitations, we believe this study makes valuable contributions. Our detailed examination of TPACK-EVT dynamics over an extended period provides insights unavailable from experimental studies with brief VR exposure. The proposed TPACK-EVT integration framework, while requiring further validation, offers a conceptual tool for analyzing VR implementations that previous research lacked. Future research should address these limitations through comparative case studies and quantitative hypothesis testing.

6 Conclusion

This study investigated the integration of semester-long VR in undergraduate neuroanatomy instruction, which revealed complex dynamics between instructor knowledge and student motivation. The coupling of the TPACK and EVT frameworks, along with the integrated analysis of the comprehensive multiple streams of data, helped illuminate how instructors’ TPACK, particularly TPK, contributed to shaping students' expectancy beliefs, value perceptions, and cost experiences. The finding that effective VR integration requires TPACK-EVT alignment offers both a theoretical contribution to connecting instructor knowledge to student motivation in immersive technology contexts and practical guidance for instructors, faculty developers, and institutions navigating the integration of VR in STEM education.

The paradox observed regarding negative experience despite positive outcomes suggests that attending to motivational dynamics is not merely about improving satisfaction but about creating sustainable integration models where both instructors and students can thrive. As VR becomes increasingly accessible in higher education, understanding these dynamics becomes essential for realizing the full educational potential of technology.

References

• 1

  AndreassenP.ChristensenM. K.MollerJ. E. (2020). Focused ethnography as an approach in medical education research. Med. Educ.54 (4), 296–302. 10.1111/medu.14045

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AngersJ.MachtmesK. (2005). An ethnographic-case study of beliefs, context factors, and practices of teachers integrating technology. Qualitative Report10 (4), 771–794. 10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BarronK. E.HullemanC. S. (2015). “Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation,” in International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences Editor WrightJ. D.2nd ed. (Elsevier), 503–509. 10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.26099-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BowerM.DeWittD.LaiJ. W. M. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual reality in education. Br. J. Educ. Technol.51 (6), 2215–2233. 10.1111/bjet.13009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  CromleyJ. G.ChenR.LawrenceL. (2023). Meta-analysis of STEM learning using virtual reality: benefits across the board. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.32 (3), 355–364. 10.1007/s10956-023-10032-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol.53, 109–132. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: a developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.61, 101859. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  FerdinandJ.SollerS.HahnJ.-U.ParongJ.GöllnerR. (2023). Enhancing the effectiveness of virtual reality in science education through an experimental intervention involving students’ perceived usefulness of virtual reality. Technol. Mind, Behav.4 (1), 76–90. 10.1037/tmb0000084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  HoneyM.AlbertsB.BassH.CastilloC.LeeO.StrutchensM. M.et al (2020). STEM education for the future: a vision report. National Science Foundation. Available online at: https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/STEM-Education-2020-Visioning-Report.pdf (Accessed December 27, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  JensenL.KonradsenF. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol.23 (4), 1515–1529. 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  KlugeM. G.MaltbyS.KeynesA.NalivaikoE.EvansD. J. R.WalkerF. R. (2022). Current state and general perceptions of the use of extended reality (XR) technology at the university of Newcastle: interviews and surveys from staff and students. SAGE Open12 (2), 21582440221093348. 10.1177/21582440221093348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  KnoblauchH. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res.6 (3). 10.17169/fqs-6.3.20

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  LawsonA. P.MartellaA. M.LaBonteK.DelgadoC. Y.ZhaoF.GluckJ. A.et al (2024). Confounded or controlled? A systematic review of media comparison studies involving immersive virtual reality for STEM education. Educ. Psychol. Rev.36 (3), 69. 10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  LeeS.-M.WuJ. G. (2024). Preparing teachers for the future: microteaching in the immersive VR environment. ReCALL36 (3), 251–269. 10.1017/s0958344024000089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  MakranskyG.PetersenG. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev.33 (3), 937–958. 10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  MakranskyG.TerkildsenT. S.MayerR. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn. Instr.60, 225–236. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed.SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec.108 (6), 1017–1054. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  PerezT.WormingtonS. V.BargerM. M.Schwartz-BloomR. D.LeeY. K.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2019). Science expectancy, value, and cost profiles and their proximal and distal relations to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math persistence. Sci. Educ.103 (2), 264–286. 10.1002/sce.21490

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  PinkS.MorganJ. (2013). Short‐term ethnography: intense routes to knowing. Symb. Interact.36 (3), 351–361. 10.1002/symb.66

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  RadiantiJ.MajchrzakT. A.FrommJ.WohlgenanntI. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. and Educ.147, 103778. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  RashidM.HodgsonC. S.LuigT. (2019). Ten tips for conducting focused ethnography in medical education research. Med. Educ. Online24 (1), 1624133. 10.1080/10872981.2019.1624133

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  SaredakisD.SzpakA.BirckheadB.KeageH. A. D.RizzoA.LoetscherT. (2020). Factors associated with virtual reality sickness in head-mounted displays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci.14, 96. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00096

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  ShinY. C.KimC. (2024). Pedagogical competence analysis based on the TPACK model: focus on VR-Based survival swimming instructors. Educ. Sci.14 (5), 460. 10.3390/educsci14050460

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res.15 (2), 4–14. 10.3102/0013189x015002004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  ThohirM. A.AhdhiantoE.Mas’ulaS.April YantiF.SukarelawanM. I. (2023). The effects of TPACK and facility condition on preservice teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality in science education course. Contemp. Educ. Technol.15 (2). 10.30935/cedtech/12918

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  WallS. (2015). Focused ethnography: a methodological adaptation for social research in emerging contexts. Forum Qualitative Social Research.16 (1). 10.17169/fqs-16.1.2182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  WuW.CastronovoF.LuoY.LiangA.GomezF.KassisS.et al (2025). Faculty learning community (FLC) as a structured intervention to prepare higher education STEM faculty for classroom integration of extended reality (XR). Comput. and Educ. X Real.6, 100096. 10.1016/j.cexr.2025.100096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  YangK.ZhouX.RaduI. (2020). XR-Ed framework: designing instruction-driven and learner-centered extended reality systems for education. CS. HC ArXiv Preprint. 10.48550/arXiv.2010.13779

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article